UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


GIFT  OF 


The 
Law  of  Life  Insurance 

In  Re 

Beneficiary  and  Assignment 

BY 

CHARLES  W.  FRICKE,  LL.M. 

OF  THE  NEW   YORK    BAR 


1903 


PUBLISHED    BY 


HOOPER    is?  UNDERWOOD 

87     NASSAU    STREET 
NEW     YORK 


CONTENTS. 


BENEFICIARY          ......  3 

ASSIGNMENT     ......  38 

ASSIGNMENT  FORMS         .....          48 

TABLE  OF  CASES  CITED     ....  60 

INDEX          .          .          .          .          .          .          .109 


112682 


BENEFICIARY. 


No  questions  relating  to  life  insurance  have  so 
frequently  been  before  the  courts,  as  those  arising 
out  of  the  designation  of  the  beneficiary,  and  the 
assignment  of  the  contract  of  insurance. 

Within  the  last  half  century,  at  least  one-half  the 
life  insurance  questions  presented  to  attorneys, 
either  for  the  claimants,  or  for  the  Company,  or 
Mutual  Benefit  Society,  involved  the  question  as  to 
whom  payment  of  the  proceeds  of  a  matured  policy 
or  certificate  should  be  made. 

Upon  the  maturity  of  a  contract  of  life  insurance, 
two  questions  arise: — to  whom  are  the  proceeds 
payable,  and,  if  payable  to  more  than  one  person,  in 
what  manner  are  they  to  be  divided.  The  liability 
of  the  insurer,  and  the  interests  involved  and  af- 
fected by  such  liability  arising  under  the  contract 
of  insurance,  make  a  correct  interpretation  of  its 
conditions,  and  the  statutory  laws  applicable  there- 
to, of  the  greatest  moment  to  the  business  of  life 
insurance. 

A  contract  of  life  insurance   is   an   agreement  The  CONTRACT. 
whereby  one  of  the  parties,  the  insurer,  in  consid- 
eration of  a  certain  sum  of  money,  called  the  pre- 
mium, undertakes  to  pay  a  certain  larger  sum  of 
money  upon  the  death  of  the  person  whose  life  is 
insured,  to  the  payee  under  the  terms  of  the  con- 
tract.     The   payee   mentioned    in   the   contract    is   The  Beneficiary 
called  the  beneficiary.     An  endowment  policy  dif-  Endowment 
fers    from    the   ordinary    life    policy,    in   that,    if  Policy 


Beneficiary  may 
sue  on  the 
Contract. 

Payment  to  a 
person  not 
entitled. 


INSURABLE 
INTEREST, 
What  insurable 
interest  is. 


Mere 

relationship 
not  sufficient. 


Must  be  a 
Pecuniary  • 
interest. 


the  insured  outlives  a  given  period  of  years,  the 
proceeds  of  the  policy  become  payable  to  him,  and 
the  beneficiary's  interest  in  the  policy  terminates. 

Even  when  not  one  of  the  contracting  parties,  the 
beneficiary  may  bring  an  action  against  the  insurer 
on  the  contract  ( i ) .  Payment  by  the  insurer  to  a 
person  not  entitled  to  the  proceeds,  does  not  prevent 
the  beneficiary  from  bringing  an  action  against  the 
insurer  for  the  amount  of  the  claim  (52  N.  E., 
750),  but  the  beneficiary  has  no  cause  of  action 
against  the  parties  to  whom  the  insurer  paid  the 
amount,  as  they  have  not  assumed  to  act  for  him 
or  to  take  the  money  for  his  use. 

The  primary  requisite  for  a  valid  contract  of  in- 
surance is,  that  there  must  be  an  insurable  interest. 
Generally  speaking,  an  insurable  interest  may  be 
said  to  be  such  an  interest  which  one  person  has  in 
the  life  of  another,  as  would  create  a  desire  for  the 
continuance  of  such  life.  There  must  be  a  reason- 
able ground,  founded  upon  the  relation  of  the  par- 
ties to  expect  some  benefit  or  advantage  from  the 
continuance  of  the  life  insured.  Although  often 
asserted  that  mere  relationship  gives  an  insurable 
interest,  it  will  be  noted  that  in  the  cases  holding 
relationship  a  sufficient  ground  for  insurable 
interest,  there  has  always  been  present  some  liabil- 
ity for  support,  or  sufficient  foundation  for  an  in- 
surable interest,  independent  of  the  mere  relation- 
ship. Where  relationship  involves  a  reasonable 
claim  to  support  or  some  other  material  benefit  or 
advantage  to  be  derived  from  the  continuance  of 
the  life  insured,  there  is  sufficient  to  constitute  an 
insurable  interest.  Our  courts  have  at  various 
times  held  that  a  wife  has  an  insurable  interest  in 


the  life  of  her  husband  (114)  ;  a  husband  in  the  life 
of  his  wife  (115)  ;  a  partner  in  the  life  of  his  co- 
partner (116)  ;  a  creditor  in  the  life  of  his  debtor 
(14)  ;  a  bondsman  in  the  life  of  him  whose  surety 
he  is  (117),  and  in  the  life  of  his  fellow  bondsman 
(118)  ;  a  tenant  in  the  life  of  his  landlord  if  the 
landlord  has  only  a  life  estate  (119)  ;  a  master  in 
the  life  of  his  servant  under  contract  for  a  term  of 
years  (120)  ;  a  servant  in  the  life  of  his  master 
(121)  ;  children  in  the  lives  of  their  parents  (122)  ; 
but  brothers  and  sisters  have  no  insurable  interest 
in  the  lives  of  one  another  (123).  It  does  not  fol- 
low however,  that  whenever  one  of  the  relations 
mentioned  above  exists,  that  there  exists  an  insur- 
able interest.  Mere  relationship  gives  no  insurable 
interest.  There  must  be  present  a  pecuniary  inter- 
est or  the  person  seekin^  to  establish  his  insurable 
interest  must  show  that  he  was  dependent  upon  the 
insured  for  support.  (2).  At  Common  Law,  there 
was  no  necessity  for  insurable  interest  (3),  but 
this  was  changed  by  the  statute  14  Geo.,  III.,  C48, 
which  made  an  interest  in  the  life  insured  essential. 
It  is  now  firmly  settled,  both  in  England  and  this 
country,  that  where  some  person,  other  than  the 
insured,  takes  out  the  insurance,  the  beneficiary 
must  have  an  insurable  interest,  or  the  contract  will 
be  void  as  against  public  policy.  (4). 
When  we  come  to  those  cases  in  which  a  per- 
son takes  out  insurance  on  his  own  life,  we  meet 
a  conflict  of  decisions  as  to  the  necessity  of  the 
beneficiary  having  an  insurable  interest.  It  is 
firmly  settled  that  every  person  has  an  insurable 
interest  in  his  own  life,  and  in  New  York,  and  a 
large  number  of  States,  it  is  held  that  where  a  per- 


Common  Law 
Rule. 


Policy  taken 
out  by  some 
person  other 
than  the 
insured. 

Policies  taken 
out  by  the 
insured. 

Insurable 
interest  in  own 
life. 


Prevailing 
Rule. 


Contrary 
Jurisdictions. 


Rule  in  Texas. 


Necessity  of 

insurable 

interest. 


son  takes  out  insurance  on  his  own  life,  and  the 
contract  is  not  a  mere  cover  for  a  speculation  or 
wager  contravening  the  general  policy  of  the  law, 
he  may  make  any  one  he  chooses  the  beneficiary  of 
such  insurance,  subject  to  the  terms  of  the  contract, 
and,  even  though  the  beneficiary  has  no  insurable 
interest  in  the  life  insured,  the  contract  is  valid 
and  the  beneficiary  may  recover  the  proceeds  due 
at  the  maturity  of  the  contract.  (  5 ) . 
In  the  United  States  Courts,  however,  and  in  a  few 
of  the  States,  the  beneficiary  is  always  required  to 
have  an  insurable  interest,  even  where  the  insur- 
ance is  taken  out  by  the  insured.  (6).  In  quite  a 
recent  case  in  the  State  of  Texas  (27  S.  W.,  286), 
where  the  policy  was  taken  out  by  the  insured,  lack 
of  insurable  interest  was  held,  not  to  avoid  the 
policy,  but  that  the  beneficiary  held  as  trustee  for 
those  legally  entitled  to  the  proceeds.  The  cases  of 
Warnock  vs.  Davis  (104  U.  S.,  775)  and  Cam- 
mack  vs.  Lewis  (15  Wall,  643),  are  generally  cited 
as  holding  that  in  all  instances  the  beneficiary  must 
have  an  insurable  interest.  This  question  was  not 
squarely  before  the  court,  for  the  transactions  in 
both  cases  were  clearly  wagering  contracts,  and  the 
New  York  courts  would  also  have  declared  them 
void  as  against  public  policy. 

Where  the  insurance  is  taken  out  by  some  person 
other  than  the  insured,  the  beneficiary  should  in 
every  instance  be  compelled  to  have  an  insurable 
interest,  for  to  hold  otherwise,  would  be  to  throw 
open  the  doors  to  transactions  for  the  mere  pur- 
pose of  speculating  upon  human  life,  and  the  at- 
tendant dangers  of  fraud  and  even  murder. 
Careful  consideration  of  the  subject  cannot 


fail  to  convince,  that  where  a  man  in  good  faith  in- 
sures his  life,  the  insurable  interest  which  he  has  in 
his  own  life  is  sufficient  to  make  the  contract  a 
binding  and  valid  one,  and  that  the  beneficiary  need 
have  no  insurable  interest.  If  the  courts  attack 
such  insurance  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  against 
public  policy  for  any  person  to  have  a  greater  desire 
for  the  death,  rather  than  the  life  of  another,  is 
there  not  as  much  ground  for  saying  that  devises 
and  bequests,  life  tenancies,  dower  and  curtesy,  are 
contrary  to  public  policy  ?  In  answer  to  those  who 
may  contend  that  the  testator  may  revoke  his  will, 
and  that  this  distinguishes  the  character  of  the  two 
transactions,  it  is  sufficient  to  say,  that  with  but 
very  few  exceptions,  all  the  life  insurance  com- 
panies and  mutual  benefit  societies  now  doing  busi- 
ness in  this  country,  are  making  insurance  contracts 
which  give  the  insured  as  great  a  right  to  change 
the  beneficiary,  as  the  testator  has  to  change  his 
devisee  or  legatee. 

A  contract  of  life  insurance  is  not  a  contract  of  INSURANCE 
indemnity,    and    an    insurable    interest,    when    re-   CONTRACT  NOT 
quired,  need  be  present  only  at  the  inception  of  the   INDEMNITY 
contract,  and  termination  of  such  interest  has  no 
effect  upon  the  validity  of  the  contract.     (7).  The   Termination  of 
case  of  Godsall  vs.  Boldero,  9  East  72,  decided  by  Insurable 
Lords   Mansfield  and   Ellenborough,   held  that  a  1 
beneficiary  could  not  recover  upon  a  policy  after  his 
insurable  interest  had  ceased.     This  case,  which 
proceeded  upon  the  theory  that  the  contract  was 
one  of  indemnity,  has  been  overruled  by  Dalby  vs. 
Assurance  Co.,  15  C.  B.,  365,  and  the  subsequent 
cases,  and  is  not  now  the  law,  either  in  England  or 
the  United  States. 


WHO   MAY  BE 

A  BENEFICIARY. 


IN  REGULAR 

LIFE 

INSURANCE. 

IN  MUTUAL 

BENEFIT 

INSURANCE. 

Beneficiaries 
must  be  within 
certain  Classes. 


Designation  of 
Beneficiary  not 
within  pre- 
scribed class — 
to  whom  the 
proceeds  will  be 
paid. 

Construction  of 
Charter  and 
By-Laws. 


While  the  question  as  to  who  may  be  the  bene- 
ficiary may  depend  largely  on  the  question,  whether 
the  proposed  beneficiary  has  an  insurable  interest, 
still  there  are  in  some  cases  other  limitations  on  the 
right  to  be  a  beneficiary.  In  the  regular  life  insur- 
ance companies,  there  is  no  requirement  with  which 
the  beneficiary  need  comply  other  than  that  of  in- 
surable interest.  In  the  case  of  mutual  bene- 
fit insurance  the  law  is  somewhat  different, 
for  the  charter,  constitution,  or  by-laws  of  the  so- 
ciety, and  the  statutes  of  most  of  the  States,  limit 
the  persons  who  may  be  the  beneficiaries  under  the 
certificate  to  certain  classes.  Those  to  whom 
mutual  benefit  certificates  may  be  payable,  are  gen- 
erally, the  husband,  wife,  family,  blood  relatives, 
affianced  husband  or  affianced  wife,  or  such  persons 
as  may  be  dependent  upon  the  member  of  the  so- 
ciety for  support. 

These  restrictions  upon  the  right  of  a  member  of 
a  mutual  benefit  society  to  make  any  one  a  bene- 
ficiary, arise  from  the  very  nature  of  these  organi- 
zations, for  their  primary  object  is  to  afford  pro- 
tection to  the  family  or  dependents  of  the  members ; 
consequently,  where  the  member  designates  as  his 
beneficiary  one  who  is  not  within  the  prescribed 
class,  the  designation  is  invalid  and  ineffective,  and 
the  benefit  is  payable  to  such  person  or  persons  who 
would  have  taken,  had  no  designation  ever  been 
made.  (8),  The  charter  and  by-laws  will  how- 
ever, be  liberally  construed,  so  as  to  carry  out  the 
benevolent  character  of  the  organization,  so  long 
as  such  construction  does  not  violate  the  statute 
law,  or  contravene  public  policy.  (9). 

On  the  other  hand,  statutes  must  be  strictly  com- 

8 


plied  with,  and  are  subject  to  the  rules  of  statutory 
construction.  Statutes  passed  after  the  organiza- 
ion  of  a  mutual  benefit  society,  enlarging  the  class 
of  persons  eligible  to  beneficiaryship,  need  not  be 
formally  adopted  by  the  society.  (10). 
Statutes  restricting  the  beneficiaries  of  mutual 
benefit  societies  to  certain  classes,  cannot  affect  a 
certificate  in  force  prior  to  its  enactment.  ( 1 1 ) . 

"A  corporation  cannot  by  stipulations  in  its  con- 
tract avoid  or  withdraw  the  operation  of  a  statute 
of  the  place  where  it  does  business." 

13  Fed.  R.  528.— 101  Cal.  627. 

There  have  been  a  few  decisions  (53  Ark.  255- 
84  la.  734),  which  hold  that  where  the  society  has 
known  that  the  designated  beneficiary  is  not  within 
the  eligible  class,  that  there  has  been  a  waiver  by 
the  society  of  the  usual  requirements.  The  Ar- 
kansas decision  may  be  accounted  for  by  the  fact 
that  in  that  State  there  is  no  statutory  requirement 
as  to  beneficiaries,  while  in  the  Iowa  decision 
the  restricting  statute  was  passed  after  the  issuance 
of  the  certificate. 

The  question  frequently  arises  as  to  whom  the 
society  is  liable  upon  the  death  of  an  insured  mem- 
ber, when  the  beneficiary  designated  is  not  within 
the  prescribed  class,  or  when  no  beneficiary  has 
been  designated. 

The  charter,  by-laws,  or  constitution  of  a  mutual 
benefit  society  usually  provide  how  and  to  whom 
the  proceeds  of  a  matured  certificate  shall  be  paid 
in  default  of  a  valid  designation  of  a  beneficiary. 
The  designation  of  a  beneficiary  in  a  mutual 
benefit  certificate  is  an  act  testamentary  in 


Compliance 
with  Statutes. 

Enlarging 
Statutes. 


Restrictive 
Statutes — their 
effect  upon 
existing 
contracts. 


Waiver  by 
Society  of 
requirements. 


Absence  of 
valid  designa- 
tion of 
Beneficiary. 


Designation  is 
of  a  testamen- 
tary nature. 


Society  held 
liable  to  no 
one. 


Contrary  rule. 


CREDITOR  AS 
PAYEE. 


Creditor  has 
insurable 
interest  in  life 
of  debtor. 


its  character  and  the  same  rules  of  construction 
apply  as  in  other  testamentary  writings.  (12). 
It  has  therefore  often  been  held,  that  where  there 
is  no  valid  designation  of  a  beneficiary  at  the 
death  of  the  insured,  the  benefit  lapses  and  the  so- 
ciety is  liable  to  no  one,  (13),  but  these  cases  de- 
pend rather  upon  the  peculiar  wording  of  the  char- 
ter, by-laws,  constitution,  or  certificate.  Forfeit- 
ures are  only  enforced  when  it  is  the  plain  intent  of 
the  contract  that  they  shall  be;  provisions  relied 
upon  to  authorize  a  forfeiture  are  construed  most 
strongly  against  the  insurer,  and  when  they  are 
repugnant,  the  courts  will  enforce  those  which  will 
prevent  a  forfeiture. 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  especially  in  the  light  of 
the  later  cases  (102  Mich.,  23 ;  60  N.  W.,  445 ;  112 
N.  Y.,  627),  and  the  attitude  of  the  Courts  toward 
forfeitures,  that  in  the  absence  of  express  forfeit- 
ure provisions  in  the  contract,  an  action  can  be 
maintained  by  the  administrator  of  the  insured  to 
recover  the  proceeds  where  there  has  been  no  pro- 
vision made,  either  by  the  insured  or  the  society, 
for  payment  of  the  benefits  in  the  event  of  the 
absence  of  a  valid  designation  of  beneficiary. 

It  is  unusual  for  a  member  of  a  mutual  benefit 
society  to  make  the  certificate  payable  to  his  cred- 
itor, but  a  large  number  of  contracts  in  regular  life 
insurance  companies  are  made  payable,  assigned  to, 
or  taken  out  by,  the  insured's  creditors.  There  is 
no  doubt  but  that  a  creditor  has  an  insurable  inter- 
est in  the  debtor's  life ;  ( 14),  but  the  questions  arise 
as  to  the  amount  of  insurance  which  may  be  made 
payable  to  the  creditor,  how  much  of  this  amount 
the  creditor  mav  hold  as  his  own,  and  what  effect, 


10 


if  any,  payment  of  the  debt  has  upon  the  right  of 
the  creditor  to  share  in  the  proceeds. 

If  the  amount  of  the  insurance  is  so  far  in  excess  Wagers  are 
of  the  debt,  with  interest,  plus  the  expense  of  car-  ^ 
rying  the  insurance,  as  to  indicate  an  intent  of  the  ™reatlyin 
creditor  to  speculate  upon  the  life  of  the  debtor,  the  excess  of  the 
policy  is  void  (15).  In  the  well  known  case  of  Cam-  debt. 
mack  vs.  Lewis  (15  Wall,  643),  the  policy  was  in 
the  amount  of  $3,000,  of  which  $2,000  was  payable 
to  Cammack  to  secure  a  debt  of  $70.  The  policy 
was  procured  at  the  instigation  of  Cammack,  and 
while  not  made  directly  payable  to  him,  was  as- 
signed to  him  by  Lewis.  The  court  declared  the 
assignment  void,  and  held  that  Cammack  was  only 
entitled  to  the  amount  of  the  debt  out  of  the  fund 
collected. 

The  mere  fact  that  the  proceeds  of  the  policy  Proceeds  in 
exceed  the  amount  of  the  debt,  with  interest  and   excess  of 
premiums,  will  not  render  the  policy  invalid  or   debt,  interest 
prevent    the    creditor    from   retaining    the    entire   and  prem 
amount  of  the  policy.    Thus,  in  Rittler  vs.  Smith, 
70  Md.,  261,  where  the  debt  was  about  $1,000, 
and  the  insurance  received  by  the  creditor  was 
$2,124.82,  and  in  Amick  vs.  Butler,  in.  Ind.,  578, 
where  the  debt  was  $600,  and  the  proceeds  received 
by  the  creditor  amounted  to  $2,000,  the  creditor 
was  held  to  be  entitled  to  the  excess  over  the  debt 
and  premiums. 

Some  jurisdictions,  seemingly  with  the  idea 
that  a  policy  of  life  insurance  is  a  contract 
of  indemnity,  have  decided,  that  even  though 
the  insured  had  taken  out  the  policy  and 
made  it  payable  to  the  creditor,  such  creditor  might 
hold  as  his  own,  only  so  much  of  the  proceeds  of 

ii 


Amount  of 
Proceeds  the 
creditor  bene- 
ficiary may  hold 
as  his  own. 


Rights  of  Cred- 
itor when  not  a 
payee. 


IN  MUTUAL 

BENEFIT 

INSURANCE. 

Not  a  part  of 

member's 

estate. 

Exempting 

Statutes. 

IN  REGULAR 
LIFE 

INSURANCE. 
Policy  payable 
to  insured  or 
his  estate. 

Premiums  paid 
in  fraud  of 
creditors. 


Wife's  Policy 
Laws. 


the  policy  as  would  pay  the  debt  with  interest  and 
the  cost  of  the  insurance  up  to  the  time  of  the  in- 
sured's  death,  but  the  better  rule  is,  that  the 
creditor  is  entitled  to  the  entire  proceeds  of  a  policy 
in  which  he  is  the  beneficiary,  unless  there  has  been 
a  breach  of  the  law  against  wagering  contracts 
(16). 

No  small  part  of  the  questions  arising  in  life  in- 
surance litigation,  involve  the  rights  of  creditors 
against  life  insurance  contracts  of  which  they  are 
neither  the  beneficiaries  nor  the  assignees.  As  a 
general  rule,  the  fund  payable  on  the  death  of  a 
member  of  a  mutual  benefit  society  is  not  a  part  of 
his  estate  and  subject  to  his  debts  (17).  Statutes 
have  been  passed  in  many  of  the  States,  exempting 
the  proceeds  of  a  benefit  certificate  from  legal  or 
equitable  process,  for  the  debts  of  the  member  or 
his  beneficiary  (18).  Policies  in  life  insurance 
companies  are  frequently  the  subjects  of  the 
attacks  of  creditors.  A  policy  payable  to  the 
insured,  his  estate,  or  his  executor  or  administrator, 
may  independent  of  statute,  be  proceeded  against 
by  his  creditor  as  a  part  of  the  insured's  estate. 

Where  premiums  are  paid  in  fraud  of  creditors, 
or  a  policy  is  taken  out  by  the  insured  while  in- 
solvent, the  creditors  may  claim  the  proceeds  or  the 
premiums  thus  fraudulently  paid,  in  the  absence  of 
a  statute  to  the  contrary  (19),  even  though  the 
policy  was  by  its  terms  payable  to  some  third 
person. 

Statutes  have  been  enacted  in  many  of  the 
States  which  protect,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  in- 
terests of  a  wife,  or  wife  and  children,  in  a  policy 
upon  the  life  of  a  husband  and  father,  even  though 


12 


the  policy  was  taken  out  by  the  insured  and  pre- 
miums paid  while  insolvent.  (20)  The  New  York  The  New  York 
statute  permits  a  married  woman,  in  her  own  name  Statute. 
or  in  the  name  of  a  third  person,  with  his  consent 
as  her  trustee,  to  cause  the  life  of  her  husband  to 
be  insured  for  her  benefit,  and  when  such  married 
woman  is  living  at  the  maturity  of  the  policy,  she 
is  entitled  to  receive  the  insurance  money  according 
to  the  terms  of  the  policy,  free  from  the  claims  of 
the  creditors  or  representatives  of  her  husband,  ex- 
cept where  the  premium  actually  paid  annually  out 
of  the  husband's  property  exceeds  $500;  that  por- 
tion of  the  insurance  money  which  is  purchased  by 
the  excess  of  premium  above  $500,  is  primarily 
liable  for  the  debts  of  the  husband.  The  policy 
may  also  provide,  that  in  the  event  of  the  wife 
dying  before  the  maturity  of  the  policy,  without 
disposing  of  it,  it  shall  be  payable  to  her  husband 
or  his,  her,  or  their  children,  or  to  or  for  the  use  of 
one  or  more  of  such  persons,  and  it  may  also  desig- 
nate trustees  for  such  child  or  children,  to  receive 
and  manage  the  proceeds  until  they  attain  full  age. 

An  obvious  defect  in  this  statute  is,  that  it  affords 
protection  from  creditors  only  in  those  cases  in 
which  the  wife  causes  the  life  of  her  husband  to  be 
insured,  and  does  not  cover  insurance  payable  to 
the  wife,  taken  out  by  the  husband  of  his  own  ac- 
cord. 

Other  State  statutes  provide  that  the  wife's  inter-   Other  State 
est  in  any  policy  on  the  life  of  her  husband  shall   Statutes. 
be  free  from  the  claims  of  creditors  or  representa- 
tives of  the  insured,  except  that  the  amount  of  in- 
surance purchased  by  premium  paid  out  of  the 
husband's  estate,  in  excess  of  that  allowed  by  stat- 

13 


Alabama  Law. 


When  creditors 
may  step  in. 


Endowment 
Policies  payable 
to  married 
women. 


Policy  assigned 
to  a  married 
woman. 


ute,  is  subject  to  the  husband's  debts.  In  some 
statutes,  the  creditor's  rights  can  only  be  enforced 
against  the  amount  of  the  premiums  paid  in  excess 
of  the  premium  mentioned  in  the  statute.  In  Penn- 
sylvania it  is  held  (99  Pa.  St.,  133),  that  where  a 
person  takes  out  a  policy  on  his  own  life,  in  the 
name  and  for  the  benefit  of  his  family  or  dependent 
relatives,  their  title  is  not  subject  to  his  debts,  and 
even  the  question  of  fraud  cannot  be  raised. 

Under  the  Alabama  Code,  Sec.  2733,  a  policy  on 
the  life  of  the  husband,  payable  to  the  wife  and  chil- 
dren, was  held  not  subject  to  the  claims  of  the  cred- 
itors, and  solvency  or  insolvency  of  the  husband 
when  the  premiums  were  paid,  did  not  affect  the 
policy;  (56  Ala.,  333),  but  in  a  subsequent  case, 
(76  Ala.,  199),  annual  premiums  in  excess  of  $500, 
were  held  liable  for  the  husband's  debts.  It  is  also 
the  law  in  Alabama,  that  where  the  wife  prede- 
ceases the  husband,  his  creditors  take  precedence 
over  her  "heirs  and  representatives,"  to  whom  the 
policy  is  made  payable,  in  the  event  of  her  death. 
(87  Ala.,  263.) 

While  it  has  been  held  (21),  that  an  endowment 
policy  is  not  within  these  exemptions,  such  de- 
cisions are  not  in  line  with  the  letter  or  intent  of 
the  statutes,  and  in  the  light  of  better  considered 
cases  are  wrong  on  principle.  The  wife's  interest 
in  such  policies  is  vested  and  subject  only  to  be  de- 
feated by  the  husband's  surviving  the  endowment 
period. 

Unless  specially  provided  by  statute,  the  exemp- 
tions in  favor  of  a  wife's  policy  do  not  apply  when 
the  policy  was  originally  payable  to  some  one  else 
and  then  assigned  to  her.  (22)  The  proceeds  of  a 


statutory  "wife's  policy"  are  not  exempt  from  the  Creditors  of 
claims  of  her  creditors,  in  the  absence  of  express  beneficiary  of 
statutory  provision.     (23)   In  a  recent  case,  in  138  Wlfes  pohcy' 
N.  Y.,  369,  a  wife's  policy  was  purchased  with  Policy  pur- 
funds  misappropriated  by  the  insured  husband,  and  chased 
it  was  held  that  the  proceeds  could  be  proceeded  ™™ 
against  and  recovered  for  the  benefit  of  the  firm 
from  which  the  funds  were  wrongfully  taken,  and 
this  decision  would,  no  doubt,  be  followed  in  most 
States. 

Where  a  policy  is  payable  to  the  wife  and  chil-  Policy  payable 
dren,  or  to  the  wife  with  a  reversion  to  the  chil- 
dren,  the  wife's  creditors  can  proceed  only  against 
the  rights  of  the  wife  under  the  policy,  and  her  fail- 
ure to  survive  the  insured,  in  most  cases  terminates 
any  rights  she,  or  any  person  claiming  under  her, 
may  have  had  during  her  lifetime. 

Section  7oa  5,  of  the  United  States  Bankruptcy  BANKRUPTCY  OF 
Act  of  1898,  provides,  in  substance,  that  where  the  INSURED  OR 
cash  surrender  value  of  any  policy  is  payable  to  the     ENEFICIARY- 
bankrupt  or  his  estate,  he  may  pay  or  secure  to  the  U.  S.  BANK- 
trustees  in  bankruptcy,  the  amount  of  such  cash  RUPTCY  ACT. 
surrender  value,  and  hold  the  policy  free  from  the 
claims  of  all  creditors  participating  in  the  distribu- 
tion of  the  estate  in  bankruptcy ;  if  this  be  not  done, 
the  policy  will  pass  to  the  trustees  as  assets.     (24) 
The  same  act  also  provides  that  the  trustee  shall 
become  vested  with  the  title  of  the  bankrupt  to  all 
property  which  could  be  transferred,  and  in  Section 
6,  it  is  provided  that  the  bankrupt's  right  under  the 
State  exemption  laws  shall  not  be  affected.    These 
two  provisions  do  not  refer  or  apply  to  insurance 
policies.      (25) 


Where  policy 

rende  ^value* 
rpayable*o'flie 
bankrupt. 


Let  us  first  consider  policies  having  a  cash  sur- 
render  vaiue  payable  to  the  bankrupt  at  the  time 
the  Petition  is  filed-  Such  policies  will  undoubt- 
edly  pass  to  the  trustee  unless  the  debtor  can  claim 
the  protection  of  some  State  law,  exempting  such 
policy  from  liability  for  his  debts.  Can  he  claim 
this  protection  ? 

Congress,  in  passing  this  bankruptcy  law,  gave 
to  debtors  the  benefit  of  State  exemption  laws,  but 
this  (Sec.  6),  is  qualified  by  Section  7oa5,  in  which 
specific  provision  is  made  for  insurance  policies  in 
which  the  bankrupt  has  an  interest,  and  in  like  man- 
ner, that  part  of  the  United  States  Bankruptcy  Act 
which  gives  to  the  trustee  all  property  which  could 
be  transferred  is  also  qualified  by  Section  7oa5.  If 
it  be  claimed  that  Section  6,  and  the  section  relating 
to  transferrable  property,  apply  to  insurance  poli- 
cies, what  was  the  need  of  inserting  any  specific 
reference  to  insurance  policies  in  this  Act?  Be- 
cause it  was  the  intent  and  purpose  of  Congress  to 
limit  the  previous  sections  of  the  Act,  and  to  pro- 
vide that  all  policies  having  a  cash  surrender  value, 
and  only  such,  should  pass  to  the  trustee,  and  the 
express  provision  for  insurance  policies,  is  the  only 
portion  of  the  Act  which  applies  to  insurance  poli- 
cies. If,  therefore,  a  State  law  gives  to  a  bankrupt 
any  greater  protection  than  is  afforded  by  that  part 
of  Section  7035,  of  the  Federal  Act,  which  makes 
express  provision  for  insurance  policies,  there  is  a 
conflict  of  statutes,  and  when  there  is  a  conflict  be- 
tween State  and  Federal  enactments,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  which  will  prevail,  for  it  is  expressly  pro- 
vided in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  that 


16 


"the  laws  of  the  United  States     *:,*,*     shall  be 
the  supreme  law  of  the  land." 

It  was  not  necessary  to  enact  that  part  of  Section 
7<Da  which  makes  specific  reference  to  insurance 
policies,  if  this  section  was  intended  merely  to  sup- 
plement the  previous  sections,  for  there  can  be  no 
doubt,  even  in  the  absence  of  Section  7<Da5,  that  a 
policy  having  a  cash  surrender  value  payable  to  a 
bankrupt,  would  pass  to  the  trustee.  Could  not  the 
bankrupt  even  in  the  absence  of  Section  7oa5,  re- 
tain his  policy  by  paying  or  securing  to  the  trustee 
the  amount  of  cash  surrender  value?  The  policy, 
by  reason  of  its  cash  value  to  the  bankrupt,  would 
certainly  pass  to  the  trustee,  but  the  trustee  has,  at 
the  time  of  its  passing  to  him,  only  such  rights  as 
the  bankrupt  himself  had,  and  therefore,  even  in 
the  absence  of  Section  7oa5,  all  that  the  trustee 
would  be  entitled  to  would  be  the  cash  surrender 
value  at  that  time,  and  by  paying  the  amount  of 
such  value,  the  bankrupt  could  retain  the  policy  as 
his  own. 

What  disposition  shall  be  made  of  a  policy  on  the  Policy  payable 
life  of  a  bankrupt,  payable  to  some  person  other  to  third  Person. 
than  himself?  We  can  reach  no  conclusion  but 
that  as  the  beneficiary  has  a  vested  interest  in  the 
policy,  the  insured  is  not  entitled  to  surrender  it  for 
cash,  and  hence  the  bankruptcy  of  the  insured  will 
not  enable  his  trustee  to  claim  or  surrender  it. 
Going  one  step  further,  let  us  suppose  the  policy 
contained  a  clause  allowing  the  insured  to  change 
the  beneficiary,  without  the  consent  of  the  then 
beneficiary.  Would  such  a  policy  pass  to  the  trus- 
tee? It  is  contended  that  it  would  not,  unless  the 
policy  had  at  the  time  a  cash  surrender  value  pay- 

17 


Endowment 
Policies. 

Payable  to 
bankrupt. 

When  bankrupt 
is  not  the 
beneficiary. 


Definition  and 
analysis  of  an 
Endowment 
Policy. 


able  to  the  bankrupt.  The  mere  fact  that  this 
clause  was  inserted  in  the  policy,  does  not  entitle 
the  insured  to  compel  a  surrender  of  the  policy  for 
cash,  for  the  beneficiary  has  an  interest  in  the 
policy — an  interest  vested  and  subject  only  to  be 
divested  by  a  subsequent  change — and  the  bene- 
ficiary's consent  would  have  to  be  obtained  for  the 
surrender  of  the  policy,  or  the  beneficiary  would 
have  to  be  changed  so  as  to  make  the  policy  payable 
to  the  insured,  before  the  insurer  could  safely  pur- 
chase the  policy. 

Let  us  now  turn  our  attention  to  Endowment 
policies.  If  the  proceeds,  both  before  and  after  the 
endowment  period  are  payable  to  the  insured 
bankrupt,  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  the  policy 
will  pass  to  the  trustee,  if  it  has  any  cash  surrender 
value.  Suppose  that  in  the  event  of  the  death 
of  the  insured  prior  to  the  end  of  the  endow- 
ment period,  the  proceeds  of  the  policy  as  a  death 
claim  are  payable  to  some  person  as  beneficiary, 
and  let  us  suppose  further,  that  the  insured  has  not 
transferred  any  of  his  rights  to  the  proceeds  of  the 
policy  as  an  endowment.  What,  if  anything,  will 
pass  to  the  trustee  of  the  bankrupt  insured  ? 

An  endowment  policy  is,  in  effect,  a  combination 
of  two  contracts : — one,  a  contract  to  insure  a  life 
for  a  term  of  years  equal  to  the  endowment  period, 
the  insurance  being  payable  to  the  beneficiary  only 
in  the  event  of  the  death  of  the  insured  prior  to  the 
end  of  such  term  of  years ;  the  other,  a  contract  of 
pure  endowment,  which  is  a  contract  by  which  the 
insurer  agrees  to  pay  to  the  insured  a  certain  sum 
of  money,  at  the  end  of  a  given  period  of  years,  if 
the  insured  is  then  living.  Thus  we  see  that  in  an 

18 


endowment  policy,  we  have  two  contingent  inter- 
ests. The  interest  of  the  beneficiary  is  contingent 
upon  the  insured  dying  before  the  end  of  the  en- 
dowment period ;  the  interest  of  the  insured  is  con- 
tingent upon  his  surviving  such  period.  The  in- 
sured cannot  surrender  the  policy  for  cash,  because 
the  beneficiary  has  an  interest  which  cannot  be  de- 
feated without  his  consent;  neither  could  the  trus- 
tee of  a  bankrupt  surrender  an  endowment  policy 
on  the  life  of  such  bankrupt,  for  the  trustee  can 
have  no  more  rights  than  the  insured  himself  had. 
If  the  insured  is  entitled  to  any  cash  surrender 
value  at  all,  his  right  is  conditional  and  terminates 
upon  his  death  prior  to  the  end  of  the  endowment 
period.  In  order  to  protect  whatever  rights  he  may 
have  to  a  cash  surrender  value,  the  trustee  would 
have  to  continue  paying  premiums  out  of  the  bank- 
rupt estate,  and  even  though  he  did  pay  the  pre- 
miums, the  insured  might  die  before  the  endow- 
ment period  expired,  and  the  trustee  would  be  en- 
titled to  nothing,  except  perhaps,  a  lien  against  the 
proceeds  of  the  policy  as  a  death  claim  for  the 
amount  of  premium  paid  by  him,  with  interest.  It 
is  contended  that  an  interest  so  contingent  in  its 
nature,  would  not  pass  to  the  trustee,  and  it  is 
doubted  whether  the  trustee  would  have  authority 
to  pay  premiums  upon  such  a  mere  contingency, 
when  such  payment  may  result  in  no  benefit  to  the 
bankrupt  estate.  (26)  Where,  however,  all  the  pre- 
miums have  been  paid,  and  the  policy  is  about  to 
mature,  it  is  possible  that  the  trustee  would  be  en- 
titled to  the  policy,  for  here  the  trustee  need  go  to  no 
expense  to  maintain  the  policy,  and  there  is  but  the 
possibility  that  the  insured  will  die  before  the  policy 

'9 


WORDS  USED  TO 
DESIGNATE  THE 
BENEFICIARY. 
"Heirs,  execu- 
tors, adminis- 
trators or 
assigns." 


'Estate.' 


matures  as  an  endowment.  Such  a  case  must,  how- 
ever, be  considered  an  exception  to  the  general 
proposition  herein  contended  for.  The  addition  of 
a  "Change  of  Beneficiary  Clause"  to  an  endowment 
policy,  would  not  give  the  trustee  any  greater  rights 
than  if  the  contract  had  been  an  ordinary  life  policy. 

There  have  been  but  few  decisions  by  the  Courts 
upon  the  United  States  Bankruptcy  Act  of  1898 
since  its  enactment,  but  even  in  the  few  decisions 
which  have  been  handed  down,  there  is  an  irrecon- 
cilable conflict,  and  for  this  reason  judicial  inter- 
pretations have  been  entirely  omitted  from  this  dis- 
cussion. 

The  evident  intent  and  meaning  of  the  Bank- 
ruptcy Act  is,  that  when  the  bankrupt  himself  is 
entitled  to  the  cash  surrender  value  of  a  policy  of 
life,  or  any  other  form  of  insurance,  then,  and  then 
only,  will  the  policy  pass  to  the  trustee,  unless  the 
bankrupt  avails  himself  of  the  option  to  pay  or  se- 
cure to  the  trustee  the  amount  of  such  cash  sur- 
render value.  (27) 

Courts  are  frequently  called  upon  to  interpret  the 
specific  words  used  in  the  insurance  contract  to 
designate  the  beneficiary.  The  words  "heirs,  ex- 
ecutors, administrators,  or  assigns,"  when  used  in 
the  payee  clause  of  a  policy  of  life  insurance,  are  to 
be  construed  as  meaning  that  the  policy  is  payable 
to  the  insured  or  his  estate,  and  upon  the  death  of 
the  insured,  claim  to  the  proceeds  may  be  made  by 
his  executor  or  administrator.  The  proceeds  of  a 
policy  so  payable  (28),  or  one  expressly  made  pay- 
able to  the  "estate"  (29),  go  to  the  executor  or  ad- 
ministrator as  general  assets ;  the  proceeds  may  be 


20 


bequeathed,  and  are  liable  for  the  debts  of  the  de- 
ceased. 

Where  a  policy  is  payable  to  the  "heirs"  of  the 
insured,  it  has  been  almost  universally  held  that 
the  fund  goes  to  those  entitled  to  share  in  the  per- 
sonalty of  the  deceased,  under  the  statute  of  distri- 
bution (30),  who  take,  however,  not  by  virtue  of 
the  statute,  but  as  purchasers  who  are  ascertained 
l>y  the  provisions  of  such  statute.  The  proceeds  of 
a  policy  so  payable  cannot,  therefore,  be  considered 
as  a  part  of  the  estate  of  the  insured  and  subject  to 
his  debts. 

Many  of  the  policies  issued  some  years  ago  have 
been  made  payable  to  the  insured's  "legal  repre- 
sentatives." It  has  been  held  (26  N.  E.,  464)  that 
those  whom  the  insured  intended  to  take,  under 
such  designation,  were  entitled  to  the  proceeds,  but 
this  decision  cannot  be  binding  upon  any  case  other 
than  that  which  was  then  before  the  court.  These 
words  in  their  strict  legal  sense,  mean  executor  or 
administrator,  and  they  will  be  so  construed,  unless 
there  are  facts  showing  that  these  words  were  not 
used  in  their  ordinary  sense.  (31 ) . 

The  words  "if  living,"  in  a  beneficiary  clause,  re- 
fer to  the  beneficiary's  living  at  the  maturity  of  the 
policy,  and  not  to  the  time  when  the  contract  had 
its  inception.  (32). 

Where  the  rights  of  a  beneficiary  depend  upon 
his  surviving  either  the  insured  or  another  bene- 
ficiary, and  both  of  the  parties  perish  in  a  common 
disaster,  the  proceeds  will  be  distributed  as  if  the 
conditional  beneficiary  had  died  first,  unless  those 
claiming  under  such  beneficiary  can  prove  his  sur- 
vivorship. There  is  no  presumption  of  survivor- 


"Heirs." 


Take  as 
purchasers. 


"Legal  Rep- 
resentatives." 


"If  living." 


Survivorship. 

Death  in  a 

Common 

Disaster. 

No  presumption 
of  survivorship. 


21 


"As  his  interest 
may  appear." 


"Relatives/ 


"Dependents.' 


'Wife." 


Divorce. 


ship,  and  the  burden  of  proof  rests  upon  the  party 
asserting  survivorship  and  whose  rights  depend 
upon  it.  (33). 

Under  a  policy  to  the  beneficiary  "as  his  interest 
may  appear,"  such  beneficiary  can  recover  and  hold 
as  his  own,  only  so  much  of  the  proceeds  as  his 
interest  in  the  life  insured  actually  amounts  to  at 
the  maturity  of  the  contract. 

"Relatives,"  a  frequent  designation  of  the  bene- 
ficiaries of  a  mutual  benefit  certificate,  includes 
relatives  by  marriage  as  well  as  by  blood  (34),  but 
it  does  not  include  an  illegitimate  child.  (35). 

When  the  insurance  proceeds  are  made  payable 
to  the  "dependents"  of  the  insured,  the  term  is  to 
be  strictly  construed  and  confined  to  those  who  are 
actually  dependent  upon  the  insured  for  support. 
(36).  The  term  does  not  include  a  creditor  (37), 
nor  a  concubine  (38),  even  though  literally  de- 
pendent, but  a  woman  who  in  good  faith  lives  with 
a  man,  believing  herself  to  be  his  wife,  although 
there  has  been  no  legal  marriage,  is  a  dependent 
within  the  meaning  of  the  term.  ^9). 

It  would  hardly  seem  necessary  to  call  upon  the 
courts  to  determine  to  whom  the  proceeds  of  a 
policy  payable  to  the  "wife,"  should  be  paid,  but  it 
is  not  at  all  unusual  for  a  life  insurance  company 
to  receive  proofs  of  death  and  claim  to  the  proceeds, 
from  more  than  one  "wife."  Thus  oftentimes,  the 
companies  are  met  with  claims  to  the  proceeds  of 
the  same  policy  or  certificate  by  a  divorced  wife, 
and  the  wife  of  a  second  marriage. 

In  the  case  of  a  regular  life  insurance  policy, 
divorce  does  not  terminate  the  right  of  the  divorced 
wife  to  the  proceeds  (40)  :  but  in  the  case  of  mutual 


22 


benefit  insurance,  divorce  (except  a  mensa  et  thoro 
(41)  ),  causes  the  wife  to  lose  her  interest  in  a  cer- 
tificate payable  to  a  "wife"  or  "widow,"  or  where 
beneficiaries  are  limited  to  the  heirs  or  family  of  the 
insured.  (42).  The  word  "wife,"  in  a  mutual  bene-  "Wife" 
fit  certificate,  ordinarily  includes  only  the  lawful 
wife  of  the  member  in  case  she  survives  him  (43), 
but,  in  44  111.,  188  (see  also  53  N.  Y.  Supp.,  622), 
where  one  Bachman  took  out  a  certificate  payable 
"to  his  wife,  Cecelia  Bachman,"  it  was  held  that 
the  said  Cecelia,  although  merely  his  affianced  wife, 
was  entitled  to  the  benefit  on  the  ground  that  she 
was  the  person  intended  as  the  beneficiary,  and 
was  as  his  fiancee,  eligible  to  beneficiaryship  in  the 
society.  In  regular  life  insurance  policies  a  desig- 
nation of  the  "wife"  of  the  insured  as  the  bene- 
ficiary, without  any  designation  by  name,  can  only 
mean  the  then  lawful  wife  of  the  insured  and  such 
wife,  unless  the  contract  otherwise  provides,  will 
take  a  vested  interest. 

Insurance  payable  to  the  "widow"  of  the  insured  "Widow." 
is  payable  to  the  wife  who  survives  him  (44)  ;  the 
fact  that  the  insured  married  his  surviving  wife 
after  the  insurance  was  taken  out  does  not  change 
this  rule. 

No  small  part  of  the  insurance  in  force  at  the  "Wife  and 
present  day  is  payable  to  the  wife  and  children  of   Children." 
the  insured,  and  the  question  often  arises,  to  what 
share  of  the  proceeds  is  each  of  the  beneficiaries 
entitled  ?    The  weight  of  authority  is,  that  the  bene- 
ficiaries share  equally,  unless  the  proportions  are  Distribution  of 
specified  (45),  but  there  are  a  few  decisions  (46)    Proceeds. 
which  hold  that  the  shares  of  the  beneficiaries  are 
to  be  determined  according  to  the  statute  of  distri- 

23 


"Husband  and 
Children." 
Distribution  of 
Proceeds. 


"Child"  or 

"Children." 
Does  not 
include  Grand- 
child or  Grand- 
children. 
Exceptions. 


Death  of  Child 
beneficiary. 
Policy  payable 
to  "Children." 


In  Regular  Life 
Insurance 


In  Mutual 

Benefit 

Insurance. 


Adopted  child. 


Children  born 
subsequent  to 
consummation 
of  contract. 


butions.  Policies  in  which  the  husband  and  chil- 
dren of  the  insured  are  named  as  beneficiaries,  are 
very  few  in  number,  but  the  decision  in  40  S.  W., 
686,  to  the  effect  that  such  beneficiaries  take  per 
capita,  will  undoubtedly  be  followed  in  most  States. 

It  may  be  laid  down  as  a  general  rule,  that  the 
words  "child"  or  "children,"  do  not  include  a 
grandchild,  or  grandchildren  (47),  although  there 
are  decisions  to  the  contrary  in  a  few  States  (48). 
There  are,  however,  two  exceptions  to  this  rule; 
first,  where  the  writing  would  be  inoperative  if 
strictly  construed,  and  second,  where  the  context 
shows  that  the  word  was  not  used  in  its  ordinary 
meaning,  but  in  a  more  extended  sense. 

While  in  some  jurisdictions  the  word  "children" 
does  not  include  grandchildren,  it  does  not  follow 
that  where  a  child,  one  of  the  beneficiaries  under 
the  policy  payable  to  the  children  of  the  insured, 
dies,  that  its  interest  either  reverts  to  the  insured  or 
vests  in  the  surviving  children.  If  the  insurance  be 
in  a  regular  life  insurance  company,  the  beneficiary 
has  a  vested  interest  in  the  policy  and  this  interest 
will  go  to  the  deceased  child's  administrator  or 
executor  (56) -(62) -86).  In  the  mutual  benefit 
cases,  where  beneficiaries  are  held  to  have  rights 
in  the  chose  in  action  similar  to  joint  tenants  with 
the  right  of  survivorship  (85)  the  rule  is  obviously 
different. 

Where  the  circumstances  show  that  he  was  in- 
tended to  be  a  beneficiary,  an  adopted  child  will 
take  under  a  policy  payable  by  its  terms  to  the 
children  of  the  insured  (49). 

Under  a  designation  of  the  "children"  of  the  in- 
sured as  beneficiaries,  a  child  born  subsequent  to 


24 


the  consummation  of  the  contract,  will  be  included 
(50)  ;  but  where  the  insurance  is  payable  to  the 
children  by  name,  a  child  born  subsequent  to  such 
designation  has  no  right  to  share  in  the  proceeds 

(so. 

Where  the  beneficiaries  designated  are  the  "chil- 
dren" of  the  insured,  the  designation  includes  chil- 
dren of  the  insured  by  a  former  or  subsequent  wife 
of  the  insured  (52),  but  it  does  not  include  children 
of  the  wife  by  a  former  husband  (53). 

*  A  policy  or  certificate  payable  to  the  wife  of  the 
insured  and  "their  children"  should,  from  the  very 
meaning  of  the  words  used,  include  only  such  chil- 
dren as  are  common  to  the  husband  and  wife,  and 
the  courts  will  so  hold,  unless  a  clear  intent  to  the 
contrary,  on  the  part  of  the  insured,  be  shown  (54). 

The  particular  designations  of  beneficiaries,  dealt 
with  in  the  foregoing  paragraphs,  include  the  most 
common  methods,  outside  of  desipnations  of  bene- 
ficiaries by  name,  by  which  the  insured  points  out 
to  whom  he  wishes  the  insurance  moneys  paid. 
The  insurance  solicitor  should  be  instructed  to 
warn  the  prospective  insurant  against  all  designa- 
tions not  clearly  setting  forth  the  intent,  and  the 
entire  intent  of  the  insured,  as  to  whom  the  pro- 
ceeds of  his  policy  or  certificate  shall  be  payable  at 
the  maturity  of  the  contract. 

Having  designated  a  beneficiary,  it  frequently 
becomes  important  for  the  insured  or  the  insurer  to 
determine  the  interest  the  beneficiary  has  in  the 
certificate  or  policy  of  insurance.  The  interest  may 
be  either  vested,  contingent,  or  conditional,  accord- 
ing to  the  particular  form  of  words  used  in  the 
beneficiary  clause.  The  interest  of  the  beneficiary 


"Children"  in- 
cludes all  chil- 
dren of  insured. 
Does  not 
include  children 
of  wife  by 
former 
husband. 
"Their  Chil- 
dren" Wife 
and. 


INTEREST 
OF  THE 
BENEFICIARY. 


Death  of 
insured  gives 
beneficiary  a 
vested  interest. 

Regular  Life 
Policy — vested 
interest  if  in- 
sured cannot 
change  the 
Beneficiary. 


Where  insured 
may  change  the 
beneficiary. 


CONTRACT 
BETWEEN 
INSURED  AND 
BENEFICIARY. 


is,  however,  often  the  subject  of  judicial  construc- 
tion where  no  conditions  or  words  of  limitation  are 
used  in  the  beneficiary  clause.  In  such  cases  we 
must  look  not  only  to  the  express  words  desig- 
nating the  payee,  but  to  the  intent  and  effect  of  the 
entire  agreement.  It  is  well  settled,  that  in  the 
absence  of  a  provision  in  the  contract  to  the  con- 
trary, the  right  of  the  beneficiary  becomes  vested 
immediately  upon  the  death  of  the  insured  (55). 
In  a  regular  life  insurance  policy,  the  beneficiary 
upon  the  issuance  of  the  policy  acquires  a  vested 
interest  therein,  which  cannot  be  impaired  with- 
out his  consent  (56).  This  rule  does  not  in- 
clude such  policy  contracts  as  contain  what  is 
known  as  the  "Change  of  Beneficiary  Clause,"  which 
allows  the  insured  to  change  the  beneficiary  in  the 
manner,  and  subject  to  the  conditions,  set  forth  in 
the  clause.  Where  the  contract  permits  the  insured 
to  change  the  beneficiary  at  will  and  without  the 
consent  of  the  then  beneficiary,  it  is  settled  beyond 
a  doubt  that  the  interest  of  a  beneficiary  of  such  a 
contract  is  not  absolutely  vested  (57).  The  in- 
terest of  a  beneficiary  in  a  life  insurance  policy 
permitting  a  change  of  beneficiary  is  but  little  less 
than  a  vested  interest,  and  may  be  described  as  an 
interest  vested,  but  subject  to  be  defeated  by  a 
valid  change. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  where  a  person  be- 
came a  member  of  a  mutual  benefit  association, 
under  an  agreement  with  the  proposed  beneficiary 
that  the  beneficiary  should  pay  all  assessments,  and 
they  were  so  paid,  the  beneficiary  acquired  a  vested 
interest,  and  that  the  member  lost  his  right  to 
change  the  beneficiary  (58),  but  the  proposition  is 

26 


a  very  doubtful  one,  and  some  of  the  States  have 
express  statutory  provisions  to  the  effect  that  no 
such  contract  can  take  from  the  member  his  right 
to  change  the  beneficiary. 

The  mere  possession  by  a  beneficiary  of  a  benefit 
certificate  or  policy,  does  not  of  itself  take  away 
from  the  insured  any  rights  which  he  may  have  of 
changing  the  beneficiary  (59).  The  vested  rights 
of  minor  children  cannot  be  affected  by  a  surrender 
of  a  regular  life  policy  to  the  company,  even  though 
their  consent  is  obtained  (60). 

So  many  policies  are  made  payable  to  the  "wife, 
and  in  the  event  of  her  prior  death,  to  the  children" 
of  the  insured,  that  it  becomes  highly  important  to 
determine  the  interests  of  the  children.  The  inter- 
ests of  the  children,  as  well  as  those  of  the  wife,  are 
vested,  but  conditional  (61).  The  interest  of  the 
wife  is  conditional  upon  her  surviving  the  insured ; 
the  interests  of  the  children  are  conditional  upon 
the  death  of  the  mother  before  the  maturity  of  the 
contract,  and  upon  her  death  all  interest  in  the 
policy  vests  in  the  children  who  survive  her,  and 
upon  the  death  of  one  of  the  surviving  children, 
his  interest  becomes  payable  to  his  executor  or  ad- 
ministrator (62).  See  cases  in  (84). 

The  question  of  the  rights  of  the  beneficiaries 
also  arises  where  the  policy  has  been  wrongfully 
surrendered  to  the  company,  and  a  new  policy 
issued  in  substitution  of  the  old  one.  In  cases  of 
this  nature,  the  rights  of  the  beneficiaries  of  the 
original  policy  are  not  affected  (63),  unless  there 
has  been  a  valid  change  of  the  beneficiary  in  the 
meantime. 

The  question  now  arises:  can  the  rights  or  in- 


Possession  of 
policy  or  certifi- 
cate does  not 
give  beneficiary 
a  vested 
interest. 
Vested  rights 
of  minors — 
surrender  of 
policy. 
Policies  to 
"wife  and,  in 
the  event  of  her 
prior  death,  to 
the  children." 
Interests  vested, 
but  conditional. 


Death  of  wife. 
Death  of  child. 


Surrender  of 
policy  in  which 
the  beneficiary 
has  a  vested 
interest. 


CHANGE  OF 
BENEFICIARY. 


IN  MUTUAL 

BENEFIT 

INSURANCE. 


Indiana  Law. 

IN  REGULAR 

LIFE 

INSURANCE. 


The  Change  of 

Beneficiary 

Clause. 

Regular  Life 
Policy. 


terests  of  a  beneficiary  be  affected  by  acts  or  oc- 
currences following,  in  point  of  time,  the  designa- 
tion of  such  beneficiary  ? 

So  general  a  query  can  only  be  answered  by  deal- 
ing separately  with  the  various  contingencies  which 
may  arise,  eliminating  as  not  within  the  direct 
scope  of  the  present  discussion,  all  cases  in  which 
the  insurer  is  not  liable  upon  the  contract. 

We  come  first  to  the  questions  involving  the 
right  to  change  the  beneficiary.  The  power  of 
making  a  change  of  beneficiary  is  almost  always 
given  to  the  member  of  a  mutual  benefit  society  by 
express  provision  in  the  charter,  constitution,  or 
by-laws  (64),  and  in  many  of  the  States,  this  right 
is  also  given  to  the  members  of  such  societies  by 
express  statutory  provision  (65).  In  Section  112 
of  the  Indiana  Insurance  Laws,  we  find  a  provision 
giving  the  same  right  to  policyholders  in  a  legal 
reserve  company.  Almost  all  of  the  regular  life 
insurance  companies  now  doing  business  in  this 
country  will  write  policies  allowing  the  insured  ta 
make  a  change  of  beneficiary.  Some  companies 
insert  the  "Change  of  Beneficiary  Clause"  in  all 
their  policies ;  others  make  inquiry  at  the  time  the 
insurance  is  applied  for,  whether  the  insured  de- 
sires to  reserve  the  right  to  change  the  beneficiary, 
and  still  other  companies  do  not  give  the  insured 
such  right,  unless  he  makes  an  express  demand  to 
have  this  provision  inserted  in  his  contract.  The 
"Change  of  Beneficiary  Clause"  in  regular  life  in- 
surance policies,  provides  in  substance,  that  the  in- 
sured may  at  any  time,  if  the  policy  is  not  then  as- 
signed, change  the  beneficiary,  by  forwarding  his 
policy  to  the  home  office  of  the  company  with  a 

28 


written  request  for  such  change,  and  that  the 
change  will  take  effect  upon  the  endorsement 
thereof  upon  the  policy  by  the  company,  and  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  then  beneficiary.  This  clause 
does  not  differ  materially  in  the  contracts  of  the  dif- 
ferent companies,  the  only  difference  being  that 
some  companies  require  the  request  for  the  change 
to  be  "duly  acknowledged/'  and  in  some  policies, 
the  consent  of  one  of  the  officers  is  expressly  re- 
quired. 

The  method  of  changing  a  beneficiary  of  a 
mutual  benefit  certificate  is  set  forth  in  the  rules 
and  by-laws  of  the  association,  supplemented  by 
statutory  provisions.  The  usual  requirements  of 
mutual  benefit  societies  are,  that  the  member  desir 
ing  to  make  a  change  shall  endorse  upon  his  cer- 
tificate a  revocation  of  the  old  designation,  and  a 
request  that  the  benefits  thereafter  be  payable  to 
the  proposed  beneficiary.  This  endorsement  is  gen- 
erally required  to  be  attested  by  the  secretary  of  the 
lodge  to  which  the  insured  belongs,  and  the  certifi- 
cate is  then  forwarded  to  the  officers  of  the  Su- 
preme Lodge,  who  cancel  the  old  certificate  and 
issue  a  new  one,  payable  as  requested.  For  the 
issuance  of  a  new  certificate,  a  small  fee  is  usually 
required.  In  some  few  benefit  societies,  the  insured 
member  has  only  the  right  to  apportion  the  fund, 
and  in  such  cases  there  can  be  no  change  of  bene- 
ficiary (66)  ;  nor  can  such  change  be  made,  where 
it  is  prohibited,  either  by  express  provision  in  the 
certificate,  or  by  provisions  to  the  same  effect  in  the 
charter,  constitution  or  by-laws  (67). 

While  there  may  appear  to  be  but  little  differ- 
ence between  a  regular  life  insurance  policy  and  a 


IN  MUTUAL 

BENEFIT 

INSURANCE. 

Usual  method 
of  changing ,  the 
beneficiary. 


When  no 
change  can  be 
made: — 

1.  Where  mem- 
ber can  only 
apportion. 

2.  Where 
change  is  pro- 
hibited. 


29 


Membership  in 
mutual  benefit 
society  gives 
member  the 
right  to  change 
beneficiary. 

No  vested 
interest. 


"CHANGE  OF 
BENEFICIARY 
CLAUSE"  OF 
REGULAR  LIFE 
INSURANCE 
CONTRACTS. 


contract  of  mutual  benefit  insurance,  a  closer  study 
will  disclose  that  the  rights  of  beneficiaries  differ 
widely  in  these  two  classes  of  life  insurance.  Thus, 
it  has  been  held  with  substantial  unanimity,  that 
membership  in  a  mutual  benefit  society  confers 
upon  the  member  the  right  to  change  his  designa- 
tion of  a  beneficiary,  and  that  the  beneficiaries  have 
no  vested  interest  in  the  benefit  fund  (68).  Just 
why  there  should  be  this  difference  from  regular 
life  insurance,  in  which  the  rights  of  the  bene- 
ficiary are  vested,  is  somewhat  difficult  to  deter- 
mine. Mutual  benefit  insurance  is  often  referred  to 
as  "the  poor  man's  insurance/'  for  while  the  bene- 
fits are  usually  small,  the  dues  and  assessments 
paid  barely  cover  the  current  cost  of  the  protection. 
The  purpose  of  these  societies  is  to  provide  a  fund 
payable  to  the  family  or  dependents  of  the  member, 
and  considering  the  obvious  hardships  which  might 
arise  from  a  change  in  the  domestic  relations,  such 
as  the  death  of  the  wife,  the  emancipation  of  some 
of  the  children,  or  the  re-marriage  of  the  member, 
the  courts  became  eager  to  construe  the  contract 
so  as  to  give  to  the  member  the  right,  any  time,  and 
without  the  consent  of  the  beneficiary,  to  make  a 
new  designation  of  those  to  whom  the  benefits 
should  be  payable. 

Life  insurance  companies,  also  realizing  the 
hardships  of  an  insurance  contract  which  gives  to 
the  beneficiary  a  right  indefeasable  by  any  act  of 
the  insured,  have  within  the  last  decade,  inserted 
in  their  policy  contracts,  either  as  a  matter  of 
course  or  at  the  request  of  the  insured,  the  "Change 
of  Beneficiary  Clause,"  thus  giving  the  insured  the 
right  to  designate  a  new  beneficiary  without  the 

30 


consent  of  any  prior  beneficiary  (69).  While,  in 
its  short  period  of  existence,  this  clause  has  often 
been  before  the  courts  for  adjudication,  there  are 
still  many  points  of  law  as  yet  undecided,  and  it  is 
only  by  a  study  of  the  decisions  in  the  mutual  bene- 
fit cases  that  we  are  able  to  judge  what  position  the 
courts  will  take  when  these  questions  come  before 
them.  Some  eminent  insurance  experts  have  con- 
tended that  a  policy  containing  the  clause  under 
discussion,  is  in  effect,  a  policy  payable  to  the  estate 
of  the  insured,  regardless  of  who  the  beneficiary 
may  be,  and  hence,  can  be  reached  by  the  creditors 
of  the  insured,  in  spite  of  the  "Wife's  Policy 
Laws,"  (See  Volume  VII.,  Nos.  26  and  27,  Trans- 
actions,  Actuarial  Society  of  America.)  Such  con- 

•  f         i  '£s~+*  C     T~*  /*        •  /"**1  J>      • 

struction  of  the  "Change  of  Beneficiary  Clause  is 
clearly  wrong. 

Wife's  Policy  Laws  were  enacted  for  the  protec- 
tion of  wives  and  children,  and  the  courts  of  this 
country  have  so  strong  a  desire  to  protect  the  weak 
and  defenceless,  that  they  will  give  these  laws  a 
strict  and  literal  construction,  a  construction  which 
must,  and  will,  give  to  the  beneficiaries  the  full 
statutory  protection  in  all  policies,  those  containing 
a  "Change  of  Beneficiary  Clause,"  as  well  as  those 
which  do  not  contain  the  provision.  The  rights  of 
a  beneficiary  under  a  contract  containing  such  a 
clause,  amount  to  more  than  a  mere  expectancy; 
they  are  rights  which  are  vested,  and  are  subject 
only  to  be  defeated  by  an  exercise,  by  the  insured, 
of  his  power  to  make  a  change. 

The  provisions  of  the  charter,  constitution,  by- 
laws,  or  contract,  prescribing  a  certain  method  by 
which  the  beneficiary  may  be  changed,  must  be 


Effect  of 
Change  of 


"Wife's 
Policy." 


Compliance  by 


qu{rements  to 
change. 


Absence  of 
requirements. 


"By  complying 
with  the  laws" 
of  the 
association. 

Change  of 
By-laws. 


Consent  of 
insurer. 

Refusal  of 
Consent. 

Waiver,  by 
insurer,  of 
strict  com- 
pliance. 


Where  policy  or 
certificate  is 
lost  or  cannot 
be  surrendered; 
or 

Where  insured 
has  done  all  in 
his  power,  but 
dies  before 
insurer  changes 
the  beneficiary. 


complied  with,  as  far  as  possible  (70),  but  in  the 
absence  of  any  prescribed  method,  the  change  may 
be  made  in  any  manner  showing  the  intent  to  make 
the  change  (71).  Many  certificates  contain  a 
clause  allowing  a  member  to  change  the  beneficiary 
by  "complying  with  the  laws"  of  the  association, 
and  in  order  to  make  an  effective  and  valid  change, 
the  insured  must  comply  with  the  laws  existing  at 
the  time  the  change  was  made  (72),  for  there  is  no 
doubt  that  an  incorporated  society  has  the  inherent 
right  to  amend,  repeal,  alter  or  suspend  its  by-laws 
and  thus  alter  the  required  method  of  changing  the 
beneficiary.  Where  the  rules  require  the  consent 
of  the  insurer  to  a  proposed  change  of  beneficiary, 
such  consent  is  usually  given,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
but  a  refusal  of  such  consent,  based  upon  reason- 
able grounds,  will  bar  a  recovery  by  the  new  bene- 
ficiary (73).  A  strict  compliance  with  the  rules  of 
the  organization  may  be  waived  by  the  insurer,  and 
where  a  change  has  thus  been  made,  the  original 
beneficiary  will  not  be  heard  to  complain  that  the 
rules  were  not  complied  with  (74). 

It  is  not  at  all  unusual  for  the  insured  to  find 
himself  in  a  position  where  he  cannot  comply  with 
the  rules  or  by-laws,  and  the  insurer  is  unwilling  to 
waive  strict  compliance.  The  certificate  or  policy 
may  be  lost,  or  in  the  possession  of  the  beneficiary 
who  refuses  to  part  with  it,  or  the  insured  may  do 
all  in  his  power  to  make  the  change,  but  may  die 
before  the  change  is  actually  made  by  the  company 
or  society.  In  cases  of  this  kind  a  court  of  equity 
will  give  relief,  and  decree  that  to  be  done  which 
should  have  been  done,  and  act  as  if  the  change 
had,  in  fact,  been  completed  (75),  but  in  no  case 


will  this  protection  be  extended  where  the  insured 
has  wilfully  or  negligently  omitted  to  take  one  of 
the  required  steps  (76). 

Although  in  many  respects  a  change  of  bene- 
ficiary is  analogous  to  a  testamentary  act,  still  it  has 
been  held  immaterial,  so  far  as  the  original  bene- 
ficiary is  concerned,  that  the  change  was  brought 
about  by  persuasion,  undue  influence  or  even  fraud 
(77)  and  a  careful  consideration  will  show  that  a 
case  of  this  nature  is  not  at  ail  analogous  to  an  at- 
tempt to  contest  a  will  upon  the  same  grounds. 

This  discussion  leads  to  the  query: — Can  the 
beneficiary  be  changed  by  the  last  will  and  testa- 
ment of  the  insured  ? 

Where  the  rules  or  by-laws  of  the  organization 
prescribe  the  method  by  which  the  change  shall  be 
made  and  do  not  include  the  right  of  disposition  by 
will,  the  insured  is  bound  by  such  regulations,  and 
an  attempt  to  change  the  beneficiary  by  will  is  in- 
operative (78)  ;  but  where  no  method  has  been  pre- 
scribed as  to  how  the  change  of  beneficiary  may  be 
made,  or  where  no  beneficiary  has  been  previously 
designated,  the  appointment  by  the  insured,  in  his 
will,  of  a  person  to  whom  the  fund  shall  be  pay- 
able, will  be  construed  as  a  valid  change  or  desig- 
nation of  beneficiary  (79). 

Ordinarily,  the  insured  cannot  defeat  the  interest 
of  a  beneficiary  under  a  contract  of  life  insurance 
where  there  is  no  change  of  beneficiary  clause,  but 
there  is  one  exception  to  this  general  statement, 
known  as  the  Wisconsin  rule.  In  this  State  it  has 
been  held,  that  one  who  has  procured  a  policy  of 
life  insurance  on  his  own  life,  for  the  benefit  of 
another,  and  has  paid  the  premiums  thereon,  may 


Fraud  or  undue 
influence. 


CHANGE  OF 

BENEFICIARY 

WILL. 


BY 


When  insured 
cannot  make 
change  by  will. 

When  insured 
can  make 
change  by 
will. 


Wisconsin 
rule — when  in- 
sured has  abso- 
lute control 
over  policy. 


33 


OF 

BENEFICIARY 
PRIOR  TO  THAT 
OF  INSURED. 

In  Mutual 

Benefit 

Insurance. 


dispose  of  the  insurance,  by  will  or  otherwise,  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  beneficiary  named  in  the  policy, 
and  the  fact  that  the  change  was  made  in  the  life- 
time of  the  beneficiary,  does  not  affect  this  rule 
(80).  The  rule  does  not,  however,  apply  to  statu- 
tory wife's  policies. 

It  has  been  contended  that  the  right  to  change 
passes  to  the  assignee,  under  an  absolute  assign- 
ment; that  some  distinction  should  be  made  be- 
tween policies  in  which  the  change  of  beneficiary 
clause  has  been  inserted  at  the  request  of  the  in- 
sured, and  policies  where  the  clause  is  inserted  by 
the  company  as  a  matter  of  course  in  all  policies ; 
and  that  the  interest  of  a  beneficiary  under  a  policy 
containing  this  clause  differs  widely  from  the  inter- 
est of  a  beneficiary  of  a  mutual  benefit  certificate. 
These  questions  have  not,  as  yet,  been  squarely  be- 
fore the  courts,  but  the  opinion  would  seem 
strongly  in  favor  of  these  contentions. 

Another  question  for  consideration  is,  what  effect 
the  death  of  a  beneficiary  prior  to  that  of  the  in- 
sured, may  have  on  the  payment  of  the  proceeds 
and  the  rights  and  interest  of  such  a  beneficiary. 

It  is  almost  universally  held,  that  where  the  bene- 
ficiary of  a  mutual  benefit  certificate  dies  prior  to 
the  insured,  the  benefit  fund  does  not,  on  the  sub- 
sequent death  of  the  member,  go  to  the  personal 
representatives  of  the  beneficiary  (81).  This  is 
due  to  the  character  of  the  organization  and  to 
hold  otherwise  would  be  not  only  contrary  to  the 
intent  and  purpose  of  the  contract,  but  would  also, 
in  many  cases,  allow  the  proceeds  to  be  paid  to  per- 
sons, who,  under  the  laws  of  the  society,  could  not 
have  been  made  beneficiaries  in  the  first  instance. 


34 


In  regular  life  insurance,  where  these  reasons  do  In  Regular 
not  exist,  it  is  firmly  settled  that  upon  the  death  of  Life 
the  beneficiary,  his  interest  passes  to  his  adminis- 
trator or  executor,  unless  there  be  a  provision  in 
the  policy  to  the  contrary  (82).  There  are  a  few  Death  of  wife 
cases  (83),  which  at  first  glance,  may  seem  to  be  beneficiary. 
contrary  to  this  general  principle.  The  cases  re- 
ferred to  are  those  in  which  the  policy  was  payable 
to  the  wife  of  the  insured,  and  the  wife  predeceased 
her  husband.  The  courts  here  held  that  on  the 
death  of  the  wife,  her  interest  passed  to  her  hus- 
band, not  by  reason  of  any  lack  of  a  vested  interest 
in  her,  but  because  the  chose  in  action  belonged,  at 
the  death  of  the  wife,  to  her  husband,  and  these  de- 
cisions will  be  followed  wherever  this  common  law 
right  of  the  husband  has  not  been  changed  by  stat- 
ute. It  was  further  held  in  85  N.  Y.,  593,  that  the 
common  law  right  of  survivorship  in  the  husband, 
was  not  affected  by  the  statutes  concerning  insur- 
ance on  the  lives  of  husbands  for  the  benefit  of 
their  wives. 

Where  a  policy  is  payable  to  the  wife,  and  in  the  Policy  payable 
event  of  her  prior  death,  to  the  children  of  the  in-   to  "wife  and,  in 
sured,  the  children  have  merely  an  interest  condi-  JJjL^JJJiJ^J*' 
tional  upon  the  death  of  their  mother  prior  to  that  tlie  Children." 
of  the  insured.    Upon  the  death  of  the  mother  prior 
to  the  death  of  the  insured  only  such  children  as  Death  °f  wife- 
survive  her  are  entitled  to  share  in  the  proceeds,  Death  of  child. 
and  any  child   which  may  have  predeceased  the 
mother,  loses,  by  its  death,  all  right,  title  and  inter  - 
est  in  the  insurance  fund,  and  no  claim  to  the  pro- 
ceeds  can   be   maintained   by   its   personal    repre- 
sentatives (61),  (62),  (84).    If,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  wife  of  the  insured  survived  him,  she  would  be 

35 


JOINT  BENE- 
FICIARIES. 

Death  of  one. 

In  Mutual 

Benefit 

Insurance. 


In  Regular 
Life  Insurance. 


Marriage  of 
insured. 


MURDER  OF 
INSURED  BY  THE 
BENEFICIARY. 


entitled  to  the  entire  proceeds  for  the  condition  pre- 
cedent, upon  which  the  rights  of  the  children  to  re- 
ceive the  proceeds  depended,  had  never  occurred. 

Suppose  we  have  a  life  insurance  contract  in 
which  there  are  two,  or  more,  beneficiaries.  What 
would  be  the  effect  of  the  death  of  one  of  them  ? 

In  the  law  of  mutual  benefit  insurance,  this  query 
has  been  answered  by  saying  that  the  rights  of  the 
beneficiaries  are  similar  to  a  joint  tenancy  with  the 
right  of  survivorship;  in  other  words,  that  upon 
the  death  of  one  of  the  beneficiaries  prior  to  that  of 
the  insured,  his  interest  goes  to  the  surviving  bene- 
ficiary or  beneficiaries  (85).  But  in  the  case  of  a 
regular  life  policy,  the  situation  is  entirely  different, 
for  here  the  beneficiaries  take  a  vested  interest  as 
tenants  in  common  (86)  ;  and  while  there  has  as 
yet  been  no  adjudication  on  this  question  where  the 
policy  contained  a  change  of  beneficiary  clause,  the 
same  conclusion  would  be  reached,  for  the  interest 
of  such  beneficiaries  must  be  treated  as  vested,  sub- 
ject only  to  be  defeated  by  a  change. 

Marriage  of  the  insured  after  the  issuance  of  a 
mutual  benefit  certificate,  will  not  of  itself,  defeat 
the  rights  which  the  then  beneficiary  may  have 
(87),  unless  by  statute,  charter  or  by-laws,  the 
wife,  or  wife  and  children,  are  entitled  to  the  pro- 
ceeds (88). 

Murder  of  the  insured  by  a  beneficiary  or  as- 
signee, will  not  ordinarily  affect  the  liability  of  the 
insurer  upon  the  contract;  but  on  the  ground  of 
public  policy,  the  funds  will  not  be  paid  to  the  mur- 
derer or  to  any  persons  claiming  under  him  (89). 
If  the  insurer  be  a  mutual  benefit  society,  the  pro- 
ceeds will  be  paid  to  the  personal  representatives  of 

36 


the  insured,  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  would  have 
been  entitled  thereto,  if  no  designation  of  bene- 
ficiary had  been  made,  excluding,  of  course,  the 
murderer  and  those  claiming  under  him.  If  the 
contract  is  one  of  regular  life  insurance,  the  per- 
sonal representatives  of  the  insured  are  entitled  to 
recover  the  proceeds  and  hold  the  money  received 
as  a  part  of  the  insured's  estate. 


37 


ASSIGNMENT. 


Definition. 


Consideration. 
Assignment  of 
entire  chose 
in  action. 
Assignment  of 
a  part. 

ASSIGNABILITY 
OF  A  LIFE  INSUR- 
ANCE CONTRACT. 


Regular  life 

insurance 

policy. 

Mutual  Benefit 
Certificate. 


An  assignment  is  a  transfer,  or  making  over,  of 
the  whole  of  any  property,  real  or  personal,  in  pos- 
session or  in  action,  or  of  any  estate  or  right 
therein. 

An  assignment  of  the  whole  of  any  property,  is 
the  creation  of  an  irrevocable  power  of  attorney 
and  no  consideration  is  required. 

The  assignment  of  a  part  only,  will  be  upheld  in 
equity  (90),  but  as  it  is  the  creation  of  an  equitable 
charge,  consideration  is  necessary. 

At  common  law,  a  contract  of  life  insurance 
could  not  be  assigned  so  as  to  give  the  assignee 
any  rights  thereunder  in  a  court  of  law ;  but  equity 
recognized  the  assignment,  and  would  compel  the 
assignor  to  permit  the  use  of  his  name  in  an 
action  to  recover  for  the  benefit  of  an  as- 
signee. At  the  present  time,  the  assignee 
may  bring  his  action  at  law,  in  the  name  of  the 
assignor;  and  in  many  States,  the  assignee  may 
even  sue  in  his  own  name,  if  the  entire  chose  in 
action  has  been  assigned.  Where,  however,  the 
assignor  refuses  to  allow  his  name  to  be  used,  or 
where  but  a  part  of  the  chose  in  action  has  been 
assigned,  the  assignee  must  go  into  equity. 

Regular  life  insurance  policies  are  assignable 
choses  in  action  (91). 

Mutual  benefit  certificates  are  also  assignable, 
but,  as  a  rule,  no  assignment  of  the  certificate  can 
be  made  prior  to  the  death  of  the  insured,  to  any 


person  not  within  the  class  of  persons  eligible  to 
beneficiaryship  (92). 

Assignments  are  governed  by  the  laws  of  the 
place  where  they  are  made  (93),  irrespective  of  the 
place  where  the  contract  of  insurance  was  consum- 
mated. 

While  the  assignment  of  life  insurance  contracts 
is  generally  governed  by  the  rules  applying  to  the 
assignment  of  all  choses  in  action,  there  is  present 
an  additional  element  —  insurable  interest.  It  is  the 
rule  in  most  States  (94),  that  if  the  transaction  is 
bona  fide,  the  assignment  of  the  interest  in  a  valid 
contract  of  insurance  is  valid,  although  made  to  one 
who  has  no  insurable  interest  in  the  life  of  the  in- 
sured, but  there  are  other  States  (95)  in  which  it 
is  held  that  the  assignee  must  always  have  an  in- 
surable  interest,  or  the  assignment  will  be  invalid. 
The  jurisdictions  in  which  the  assignee  is  required 
to  have  an  insurable  interest,  have  very  likely  been 
governed  by  the  cases  of  Warnock  vs.  Davis  and 
Cammack  vs.  Lewis,  in  the  United  States  Supreme 
Court,  which  were  instances  of  clearly  wagering 
transactions,  and  the  assignments  were  justly  con- 
demned. The  conclusion  in  both  of  these  cases 
would  have  been  reached  in  the  courts  throughout 
the  Union,  on  a  similar  statement  of  facts  ;  but  to 
follow  the  conclusions  reached  in  these  two  cases, 
without  regard  to  the  particular  facts  in  each  case- 
cannot  but  lead  to  error.  The  mere  fact  that  an 
assignee,  without  insurable  interest,  has  a  greater 
interest  in  the  death  than  in  the  life  of  the  insured, 
is  of  itself,  no  reason  why  the  assignment  should  be 
condemned,  for  there  are  numerous  instances  in 
which  the  law  has  upheld  other  transactions  in 


What  law 


Insurable 
Interest. 


When 
unnecessary. 


Contrary 
decisions. 


39 


Termination  of 
assignee's 
insurable 
interest. 


Form  of  words 
used. 


Notice  to 
insurer. 


which  the  interest  of  one  person  depended  upon  the 
death  of  the  other. 

Whether  the  assignment  is  a  mere  cover  for  a 
wager,  may  be  determined  by  ascertaining  whether 
the  policy  was  taken  out  with  the  intention  of  as- 
signing it  as  soon  as  it  was  issued;  by  whom  the 
premiums  had  been  paid  before,  and  by  whom  they 
will  be  paid  after  the  assignment;  by  whom  (bene- 
ficiary or  insured)  the  assignment  was  made;  the 
relations  of  the  parties ;  but  until  a  wagering  trans- 
action is  shown  there  is  no  reason  why  any  court 
should  condemn  an  assignment  merely  on  the 
ground  that  the  assignee  had  no  insurable  interest. 
Lack  of  insurable  interest  in  the  assignee  will  not, 
in  the  absence  of  express  provision,  avoid  the  con- 
tract. 

Termination  of  the  assignee's  insurable  interest 
will  not  invalidate  the  assignment  (96),  but  the 
wording  of  the  assignment  may  prevent  the  as- 
signee from  holding  as  his  own,  any  part  of  the 
proceeds,  in  the  event  of  the  termination  of  such 
interest. 

In  making  an  assignment,  no  particular  form  of 
words  need  be  used,  so  long  as  a  clear  intention  to 
assign  is  shown  (97). 

To  complete  the  assignment  of  a  life  insurance 
contract  the  insurer  should  be  informed  thereof,  for 
until  notified  of  the  assignment,  the  insurer  is  en- 
titled to  regard  the  assignor  as  the  owner,  and  he 
may  accept  a  release  from  him,  thus  barring  the 
right  of  the  assignee  against  the  insurer.  A  notice 
to  the  insurer  is  also  advisable,  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  by  so  doing,  the  assignee  is  entitled  under  the 


40 


New  York  Statute,  to  notice  of  due  date  of  pre- 
miums. 

Where  the  assignment  is  in  writing,  delivery  of  Delivery  of 
the  policy  is  not  absolutely  necessary  to  validate  policy  or 
the  assignment  (98),  but  the  assignment  must,  in 
such  cases,  be  delivered.     Even  a  writing  is  not  . 

necessary,   for  the  policy  may  be  transferred  by   Gift. 
parol,  if  accompanied  by  delivery  (99).    Thus,  the 
policy  may  be  the  subject  of  a  gift,  either  causa 
mortis  or  inter  vivos  (100). 

Where  the  policy  requires  the  consent  of  the  in-  Consent  of 
surer  to  an  assignment,  the  parties  to  the  assign-  insurer. 
ment  cannot  object  because  such  consent  was  not 
obtained  (101).  While  there  is  a  conflict  of  decis- 
ions on  the  right  of  the  insurer  to  object  to  an  as- 
signment on  the  ground  that  its  consent,  as  re- 
quired by  the  contract,  had  not  been  obtained,  it  is 
difficult  to  see  how  the  assignment  of  the  chose  in 
action  can  be  prevented  by  a  clause  injected  into 
the  policy  by  the  insurer  for  his  own  protection. 
In  the  absence  of  a  condition  that  assignment  of 
the  policy  or  certificate  will  render  it  void,  the 
assignee  will  be  entitled  to  the  proceeds  of  the 
policy  (102)  ;  in  the  event  of  the  insurer's  refusing 
to  pay  to  the  assignee,  an  action  could  be  brought 
in  the  name  of  the  assignor,  and  the  insurer  could 
not  set  up  as  a  defence  that  the  action  was  brought 
for  the  benefit  of  the  assignee.  An  attempt  by  the 
insurer  to  prescribe  how  an  assignment  shall  or 
shall  not  be  made  is  futile,  in  so  far  as  it  seeks  to 
prevent  the  assignee  from  being  entitled  to  the 
proceeds. 

Nearly  all  change  of  beneficiary  clauses  give  the  ^SeT?*** 
insured  the  right  to  make  change  of  beneficiary   then  assigned/ 


"provided  that  the  policy  is  not  then  assigned"  or 
words  to  the  same  effect.  The  result  of  the  inser- 
tion of  this  condition  is  that  where  the  policy 
has  been  assigned,  the  insured  cannot  make  any 
change  of  beneficiary.  This  condition,  however, 
refers  only  to  the  time  when  the  request  for  a 
change  is  made.  In  other  words,  if  the  policy 
has  been  assigned  in  the  past,  but  there  has  been  a 
release  or  reassignment  to  the  original  assignor 
before  the  request  for  a  change  of  beneficiary  is 
made,  such  request  must  be  granted  by  the  insur- 
ance company  unless  there  is  some  other  reason  for 
a  refusal.  In  such  case,  the  release  or  reassign- 
ment has  the  effect  of  placing  all  the  persons  inter- 
ested in  exactly  the  same  position  in  which  they 
were  before  the  assignment,  and  the  policy  may  be 
dealt  with  as  if  no  assignment  had  ever  been  made. 
The  reassignment  by  the  original  assignee  to  the 
original  assignor  cannot  be  considered  an 
assignment  within  the  meaning  of  the  change 
of  beneficiary  clause.  The  question  now 
arises:  what  effect  will  an  assignment  by 
a  third  party  beneficiary  have  upon  the  right  of  the 
insured  to  make  a  change  of  beneficiary  where  the 
policy  contains  the  condition  above  mentioned? 
This  condition  is  inserted  in  the  change  of  bene- 
ficiary clause  for  the  protection  of  the  insurance 
company,  and  if  the  beneficiary  has  assigned  his 
interest  in  the  policy,  the  company  can,  by  virtue 
of  this  condition,  refuse  any  request  for  a  change 
of  beneficiary  during  the  existence  of  the  assign- 
ment. The  condition  may,  however,  be  waived  by 
the  company  and  the  insured  may  then  make  a 
valid  change  and  thus  cut  off  all  the  rights  which 

42 


the  assignee  of  the  beneficiarv  took  under  the  as- 
signment. The  beneficiary's  rights  and  interest 
were  subject  to  the  right  of  the  insured  to  make, 
at  any  time  and  without  the  consent  of  the  bene- 
ficiary, a  change  of  beneficiary,  and  the  assignee 
of  the  beneficiary  has  no  greater  rights  and  interest 
in  the  policy  than  his  assignor  had.  Where  the 
change  of  beneficiary  clause  makes  no  reference  to 
assignments,  or  where  the  insurance  company  has 
waived  its  right  to  object,  which  it  had  under  a 
clause  similar  to  the  one  under  discussion,  the 
rights  of  an  assignee  of  the  insured  cannot  be  de- 
feated by  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  insured  and 
the  company  to  make  a  change  of  beneficiary.  No. 
valid  change  will  be  effected  even  though  the  in- 
sured and  the  company  have  done  all  in  their 
power  to  make  a  change  of  beneficiary,  for  the  as- 
signee's rights  under  the  assignment  are  vested 
and  cannot  be  defeated  by  any  acts  on  the  part  of 
the  insured  and  the  insurance  company. 

In  order  to  make  an  absolute  assignment,  all  per-  Absolute 
sons  having  an  interest  in  the  policy  must  join  in   assignment — 
the  assignment ;  an  assignment  will  convey  only  *rf°  ^ust 
such  rights  and  interest  as  the  assignor  may  have.  jm 

The   insured   may  assign   a   policy  payable   to   When  insured 
his    estate,    or    he    may    assign    his    interest    in  ™ay  assign. 
an  endowment  policy  (103).    The  beneficiary  may  Beneficiary 
also,  ordinarily,  assign  his  interest  in  the  policy  or  may  assign. 
certificate  (104),  subject  of  course,  to  the  capacity 
of  the  beneficiary  to  make  an  assignment. 

In  the  absence  of  statutory  prohibition  or  limita-   Wife's  policy. 
tion,  if  a  statute  gives  to  a  married  woman  control  Ass{gnmeni  by 
over  her  property  so  that  she  may  transfer  the  married  woman. 
same,  she  is  authorized,  under  such  power,  to  trans- 

43 


Amount  of 
proceeds 
received  by 
assignee. 


Where  assign- 
ment is  a 
wagering 
transaction. 


Absolute 
assignment  to  a 
creditor. 

Where  creditor 
may  hold 
entire  pro- 
ceeds. 

Contrary  rule. 


fer  a  policy  in  which  she  is  the  beneficiary  (105). 
In  some  States,  however,  the  right  of  a  wife  to  as- 
sign a  policy  payable  to  her,  is  limited  in  so  far 
that  her  husband  must  consent  to  the  assignment; 
and  in  cases  involving  the  assignment  of  policies 
by  married  women,  careful  attention  should  be 
paid  to  the  decisions  and  statutory  provisions  ap- 
plicable thereto  (106). 

Ordinarily  the  absolute  assignee  of  a  policy  or 
certificate  of  insurance,  is  entitled  to  the  entire  pro- 
ceeds, if  the  entire  chose  in  action  has  been  as- 
signed to  him.  Where,  however,  the  assignment 
is  made  to  a  creditor,  there  is  a  conflict  of  decis- 
ions. Where  the  assignment  is  a  wagering  trans- 
action, it  is  of  course  void,  and  the  assignee  can 
hold  as  his  own  merely  the  sums  advanced  by  him, 
and  must  account  to  the  assignor  or  his  per- 
sonal representatives  for  the  balance  (107). 
The  conflict  referred  to  is  in  cases  where 
the  assignment  was  a  valid  one.  In  New  York, 
and  many  of  the  States,  it  has  been  held  that  if  an 
absolute  assignment  of  a  policy  is  made  to  a  cred- 
itor, the  creditor  can  retain  as  his  own  the  entire 
proceeds,  even  though  the  debt,  with  interest,  and 
any  premiums  which  have  been  paid,  amount  to  a 
sum  smaller  than  the  proceeds  of  the  policy  (108). 
On  the  other  hand,  there  are  jurisdictions  which 
hold  that  a  creditor  assignee  can  hold  as  his  own 
only  so  much  of  the  proceeds  as  is  necessary  to  his 
indemnity,  and  that  the  balance  is  payable  to  the 
assignor  or  his  personal  representative  (109). 

There  is  no  justification,  on  sound  legal  prin- 
ciples, for  thus  turning  an  absolute  assignment  into 
an  assignment  as  collateral  security.  The  assignee 


creditor  is  not  receiving  absolute  payment  of  the 
debt,  with  interest,  and  any  premiums  which  he 
may  have  to  pay  to  keep  the  policv  alive,  when  he 
takes  an  assignment  of  the  policv  from  his  debtor. 
A  policy  of  insurance  is  not  a  guarantee  that  its 
face  value  will  be  paid  at  its  maturity.  The  in- 
sured may  be  executed  as  a  criminal,  the  assignor, 
if  he  is  a  beneficiary  or  prior  assignee,  may  murder 
the  insured,  the  insured  may  refuse  to  pay  the  pre- 
mium and  the  assignee  may  be  unable  to  do  so,  and 
the  policy  may  lapse;  these,  and  many  other  con- 
ditions may  arise,  which  if  they  do  not  entirely 
divest  the  assignee  of  all  right  to  the  proceeds,  may 
reduce  the  proceeds  to  a  sum  less  than  the  amount 
of  the  debt. 

A  creditor  taking  an  assignment  of  a  policy  of 
insurance  from  his  debtor  is,  in  effect,  engaging  in 
a  legitimate  speculation,  and  as  he  takes  with  the 
assignment  its  burdens,  he  should  also  be  entitled 
to  the  entire  benefits  thereunder.  If  it  is  the  desire 
of  the  assignor  to  limit  the  right  of  the  assignee  to 
the  amount  of  the  debt,  let  him  so  word  the  assign- 
ment that  it  will  have  that  effect.  An  assignment 
to  the  creditor  "as  his  interest  may  appear,"  would 
limit  the  right  of  the  assignee  to  such  a  part  of  the 
proceeds  as  might  be  necessary  to  his  indemnity. 

It  has  been  held  that  an  assignment,  absolute  in  Assignment 
form,  may  be  shown  by  extrinsic  evidence  to  have  as  collateral — 
been,   in    fact,   as   collateral   security    (no),   and  amount 
under  a  collateral  assignment,  the  assignee  may 
hold  as  his  own,  only  the  amount  of  the  debt,  plus 
interest  and  expenses  (in).     But  where  a  court 
gives  to  an  assignment,  absolute  in  fact  as  well  as 
in  form,  the  same  effect  that  it  would  give  to  an 

45 


Fraud  or 

Undue 

Influence. 

Assignment  in 
fraud  of 
creditors. 

Murder  of 
insured  by 
assignee,  or  a 
predecessor  in 
interest. 


assignment  as  collateral,  it  is  difficult  to  see  either 
justice,  or  a  recognition  of  sound  legal  principles 
in  such  decision. 

An  assignment  of  the  beneficial  interest  in  a  life 
insurance  contract  may  be  avoided,  if  it  has  been 
procured  through  the  use  of  fraud  or  undue  influ- 
ence (112),  or  if  it  has  been  made  in  fraud  of  cred- 
itors (113).  Murder  of  the  insured  by  the  as- 
signee, or  by  one  through  whom  he  takes  his  inter- 
est, does  not  avoid  the  assignment,  but  on  the 
grounds  of  public  policy,  the  murderer  or  those 
claiming  under  him  will  not  be  entitled  to  any  part 
of  the  proceeds,  which  will  go  to  the  insured's  per- 
sonal representatives  (89)  ;  or,  in  the  case  of 
mutual  benefit  insurance,  to  the  insured's  personal 
representatives  for  the  benefit  of  those  (exclusive 
of  the  murderer  and  those  claiming  under  him), 
who  would  have  received  the  proceeds  had  no  bene- 
ficiary been  designated. 

Bearing  in  mind  that  there  are  in  force  at  the 
present  time  in  the  United  States  more  than  fifteen 
billions  of  dollars  of  life  insurance,  and  that  the 
army  of  prudent  individuals  who  have  availed 
themselves  of  the  benefits  of  life  insurance  is  in- 
creasing rapidly,  we  cannot  fail  to  realize  the 
enormous  interests  involved. 

In  a  large  number  of  the  life  insurance  contracts 
now  in  force,  there  will  be  no  question  as  to  whom 
the  proceeds  shall  be  paid  at  the  maturity  of  the 
policy  or  certificate,  but  there  are  also  a  large  num- 
ber of  life  insurance  contracts  which  will  involve, 
at  or  before  their  maturity,  the  questions : — 

First: — To  whom  shall  the  proceeds  be  paid? 
and 


Second: — If  the  proceeds  are  payable  to  more 
than  one  person,  how  shall  they  be  apportioned? — 
and,  though  no  general  rule  of  construction  or  in- 
terpretation can  be  laid  down,  an  effort  has  been 
made  to  show  what  position  the  courts  have  taken 
in  the  past  regarding  these  questions,  and  what  po- 
sition they  will  be  likely  to  take  in  the  future. 


47 


FORMS  OF  ASSIGNMENT. 


ABSOLUTE  ASSIGNMENT. 

For  Value  Received hereby  assign  and  trans- 
fer unto of 

the  Policy  of  Insurance  known  as  No , 

issued  by  the 

LIFE  INSURANCE  COMPANY, 

upon  the  life  of ,  of 

,  and  all  dividend,  benefit,  and 

advantage  to  be  had  or  derived  therefrom,  subject  to  the 
conditions  of  the  said  Policy. 

Witness hand    and  seal  ,  this r.  .day 

of nineteen  hundred 


State  of 1 

County  of f   • 

On  this day  of ,  190  ,  before 

me  personally  came 

to  me  known  to  be  the  individual  described  in  and  who 
executed  the  foregoing  assignment,  and  acknowledged 
that. .  .  .executed  the  same. 


ABSOLUTE  ASSIGNMENT. 


For  Value  Received,  I  hereby  assign,  transfer,  and  set 

over  all  my  right,  title  and  interest  in  Policy  No 

issued  on  the  life  of by 

(Full  Name) 


LIFE  INSURANCE  COMPANY, 


to 

of   

and  I  do  also  for  myself,  my  executors  and  administrators, 
guarantee  the  validity  and  sufficiency  of  the  foregoing  as- 
signment to  the  above  named  assignee,  h  executors,  ad- 
ministrators, and  assigns,  and  their  title  to  the  said  Policy 
will  forever  warrant  and  defend. 

In  witness  whereof,  I  have  hereunto  set  my  hand  and 

seal,  at 

this day  of i 


[SEAL] 

(Full  Name) 


[SEAL] 

(Full  Name) 


In  presence  of 


49 


ABSOLUTE  ASSIGNMENT   WITH   POWER  OF  ATTORNEY. 


For  Value  Received, hereby  transfer,  assign,  and 

set  over  unto 

and executors,  administrators  or  assigns,  all 

right,  title,  and  interest  in  Policy  of  Insurance  issued  by 
Company,  No dated 


.,  and  all  advantages  to  be  derived  therefrom. 


Furthermore, hereby  constitute  the  above-named 

assignee  or lawful  substitute,  .lawful  attor- 
ney for and  in name  to  collect  from  the 

above-named  Company  any  and  all  moneys  which,  under 
said  policy,  shall  become  owing  thereon,  whether  for  divi- 
dends, capital  sum  insured,  or  otherwise,  and  to  acquit 

said  Company  therefor  as  fully  as could  in  person 

do  or  accomplish  any  or  all  of  the  acts  aforesaid. 

Witness hand    and  seal  ,  this day 

of  19 

[L.S.] 

[L.S.] 

Sealed   and   delivered   in   the  presence   of 


ASSIGNMENT  OF  LIFE  INTEREST  IN   ENDOWMENT  POLICY. 


For  Value  Received,  I  hereby  assign  the  benefits  pay- 
able at  my  death,  in  the  event  of  its  happening  prior  to 
the  expiration  of  the  endowment  period,  under  Policy 

No ,  issued  by  the Insurance 

Company  of  ,  with  all  the  proceeds  thereof  and 

all  sums  of  money,  interest,  benefit  and  advantages  what- 
soever accrued  and  to  accrue  thereunder  unto 

,  residing  at 

,  and  I  do  also  for  myself,  my  executors, 

administrators  or  assigns,  guarantee  the  validity  and  suffi- 
ciency of  this  assignment  to  the  above-named  assignee, 

executors,  administrators  or  assigns,  and title 

to  the  contingent  interest  in  said  Policy  above  set  forth 
will  forever  warrant  and  defend. 


State  of.. 
County  of. 


On  this day  of ,  19    , 

before  me  personally  came 

to  me  known  to  be  the  individual  described  in  and  who 
executed  the  foregoing  assignment  and  acknowledged 
that. .  .  .executed  the  same. 


[SEAL] 


ASSIGNMENT,  CONDITIONAL  UPON   DEATH  PRIOR  TO  MATURITY 
OF   POLICY   AND  THE    SURVIVAL   OF   THE   ASSIGNEE. 


For  Value  Received,  I  hereby  transfer,  assign,  and  set 

over   unto 

and  assigns,  all  my  right,  title  and  interest  in 

Policy  of  Insurance  issued  by Company, 

No dated i ,  and  all 

advantages  to  be  derived  therefrom:  Provided,  the  said 
Policy  shall  become  payable  by  reason  of  my  death  prior 
to  the  date  when  the  endowment  would  have  matured: 
and  Provided  also  that  the  said  assignee  shall  then  sur- 
vive me,  otherwise  all  right,  title  and  interest  in  the  said 
Policy  is  to  revert  to  me,  as  fully  as  if  this  Assignment 
had  never  been  made. 

Witness  my  hand  and  seal,  this day 

of 19 

Sealed  and      )  • 

delivered  in  the  >• [L.  s.] 

presence  of      ) 


ASSIGNMENT    IN    CONSIDERATION    OF    LOVE    AND    AFFECTION 
CONDITIONAL    UPON    SURVIVAL    OF    ASSIGNEE. 


In  Consideration  of  natural  love  and  affection,  and  of 

other  valuable  considerations,  I, 

insured  in  and  by  a  policy  or  contract  of  insurance,  num- 
bered   and  issued by 

LIFE  INSURANCE  COMPANY, 

do  hereby  assign  and  transfer  unto 

my and  for sole  use  and 

benefit,  all  my  right,  title  and  interest  in  and  to  said  policy, 
or  contract  of  insurance,  meaning  thereby  to  convey  all 


the  rights  and  benefits  that  would  accrue  if  said  assignee 
was  actually  named  in  said  policy  or  contract  of  insurance 
as  the  beneficiary. 

I  hereby  guarantee  the  validity  and  sufficiency  of  this 
assignment  to  the  above  named  assignee,  subject  to  the 
terms  and  conditions  of  said  policy,  or  contract  of  insur- 
ance, and  authorize  the  said  Company  to  pay  any  remain- 
ing balance  of  proceeds  thereof,  at  its  termination,  to  the 
said  assignee,  without  the  payment  to  me  of  any  further 
consideration. 

Provided,  however,  and  this  assignment  is  made  upon 
the  express  condition,  that  if  the  said  insured  shall  sur- 
vive the  said  assignee  or  shall  be  living  at  the  expiration 
of  the  endowment  period  (if  such  period  is  named  in  the 
said  policy  or  contract),  then  this  assignment  shall  there- 
upon cease  and  determine,  and  all  interest  therein  shall  re- 
vert to  and  vest  in  the  said  assignor, executors, 

administrators  or  assigns. 

Witness hand     and  seal  this day 

of A.  D.  190. . . 

[L.  s.] 

[L.  s.] 

State  of I  cc 

County  of J 

Be  It  Known  that  on  the day 

of A.  D.  19. .,  before 

me,  a  Notary  Public  in  and  for  the  said  County,  in 
the  State  aforesaid,  duly  commissioned  and  sworn, 

personally  came  and  appeared 

of  legal  age,  to  me  personally  known,  and  known  to 
me  to  be  the  same  person  described  in,  and  who  exe- 
cuted the  foregoing  instrument,  and  to  me  acknowl- 
edged the  same  to  be free  act  and  deed. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  have  hereunto  subscribed  my 

name,  and  affixed  my  seal  of  office,  the  day  and  year  last 

above  written. 


53 


ASSIGNMENT,     CONDITIONAL     UPON    THE     SURVIVAL    OF    THE 
ASSIGNEE. 


For  Value  Received,  I  hereby  transfer,  assign,  and  set 

over  unto  

and assigns,  all  my  right,  title  and  interest  in 

Policy  of  Insurance  issued  by Company, 

No dated i ,  and  all  ad- 
vantages to  be  derived  therefrom,  provided  the  said  as- 
signee should  survive  me,  otherwise  all  right,  title  and  in- 
terest in  the  said  Policy  is  to  revert  to  me,  as  fully  as  if 
this  Assignment  had  never  been  made. 

Witness  my  hand  and  seal,  this day 

of 19. ..    Sealed  and  delivered  in 

presence  of     )    [L.  s.] 


ASSIGNMENT    TO    SECURE    CREDITOR. 


I, ,  hereby  assign 

the  within  Policy  of  Life  Insurance  No ,  of 

the 

LIFE  INSURANCE  COMPANY, 

bearing  date   to 

to  secure  the  payment  of 

In  case  of  the  death  of  the  said  assignor  prior  to  the 
payment  of  the  above  described  obligation,  then  said  obli- 
gation shall  be  paid  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  said  life  in- 
surance policy,  the  remainder  of  said  proceeds  to  be  paid 
to  the  beneficiary  named  in  said  policy,  or  to  the  estate  of 
the  said  assignor,  as  provided  therein. 

Witness,  The  hand  of  the  said  assignor  this 

day  of ,  190. . 

ss. 


(Witness.) 

54 


ASSIGN  MENT— COLLATERAL. 

For  Value  Received, hereby  assign  to 

,  of all right, 

title,  and  interest  in  Policy  No ,  issued  by 

the LIFE  INSURANCE  COMPANY,  together  with  all 

right,  title,  and  interest  in  all  distributions  made 

and  declared,  or  to  be  made  and  declared,  to  or  under  said 
Policy  (except  that  such  distributions  may  be  used  in  pay- 
ment of  premiums  by  the  insured),  to  be  held  as  collateral 
security  for  the  amount  of demands,  sub- 
sisting against 

at de- 
cease, with  the  right  to  collect  the  same  at  the  maturity  of 
the  Policy,  and  also  to  surrender  the  same  at  any  anni- 
versary of  issue  at option  to  the  said  Insur- 
ance Company,  and  receive  the  cash  surrender  value  there- 
of, and  to  pay  the  balance,  if  any,  after  payment  of  said 
indebtedness,  to  the  persons  entitled  thereto,  under  the 
terms  of  the  Policy. 

The  payment  of  said  Policy,  or  the  cash  surrender 

value  thereof,  to  said 

and receipt  for  the  same,  shall  be  a  full  dis- 
charge and  release  to  said  Insurance  Company  of  all 

claims  under  said  Policy ;  and  said  Insurance 

Company  shall  not  be  bound  in  any  way  to  see  to  the  ap- 
plication of  the  proceeds  of  said  Policy. 

Witness hand    and  seal     at 

this  day  of 190  . 

[L.   S.] 

In  presence  of 


55 


ASSIGNMENT    AS    COLLATERAL    SECURITY. 


For  Value  Received hereby  assign  and  trans- 
fer unto 

of    ,   as   collateral   for   a 

loan  of dollars 

($ )  with interest,  all right, 

title  and  interest  in  and  to  Policy  numbered 

issued  by  the 

LIFE   INSURANCE   COMPANY, 

upon  the  life  of 

of ,  subject  to  all 

the  conditions  of  said  policy,  it  being  understood,  how- 
ever, that  all  distributions  of  surplus  apportioned  to  this 
policy  may  be  paid  to  or  used  for  the  benefit  of  the  in- 
sured. 

The  insured  waives,  during  the  life  of  this  assignment, 
the  right  (if  any  there  be),  reserved  in  said  policy  to  make 
change  of  beneficiary. 

And  said  Company  is  authorized,  on  maturity  of  said 
policy,  to  deduct  from  the  proceeds  thereof,  the  amount  of 
the  indebtedness  hereby  secured  and  to  pay  the  same  to 
the  Asignee  ;  the  balance  of  said  policy,  if  any  remain,  to 
be  payable  as  designated  therein. 

In  case  of  default  in  the  payment  of  the  indebtedness 
hereby  secured,  the  Company  may,  upon  the  demand,  and 
the  sole  signature  of  the  Assignee  to  the  surrender  re- 
ceipt, pay  and  satisfy  the  claim  of  the  Assignee  from  out 
of  the  cash  surrender  value  of  said  policy,  according  to 
the  Company's  general  rules  then  in  use ;  the  balance  of 

said  value,  if  any  remain,  to  be  paid  to , 

which  payment  shall  be  in  full  satisfaction  of  said  policy. 

In  Witness  Whereof, have  hereunto  set 

hand    and  seal  ,  this day 

of 19 


L.  s. 

L.    S. 
L.    S. 


In  presence  of 


ASSIGNMENT— COLLATERAL,    WITH    POWER    OF    ATTORNEY. 


For  Value  Received, hereby  transfer,  assign, 

and  set  over  unto 

and executors,  administrators  or  assigns,  all 

right,  title,  and  interest  in  Policy  of  Insur- 
ance issued  by ,  No , 

dated i ,  and  all  advantages  to  be  de- 
rived therefrom,  as  a  collateral  security  for  indebtedness. 

Furthermore, hereby  constitute  the  above- 
named  assignee  or lawful  substitute 

lawful   attorney   for and   in name     to 

collect  from  the  above-named  Company  any  and  all 
moneys  which,  under  said  policy,  shall  become  owing 
thereon,  whether  for  dividends,  capital  sum  insured,  or 
otherwise,  and  to  acquit  said  Company  therefor  as  fully 

as could  in  person  do  or  accomplish  any  or  all 

of  the  acts  aforesaid. 

Witness hand    and  seal  ,  this day 

of 19. 

[L.  s.] 

[L.  s.] 

Sealed  and  delivered  in  presence  of 


57 


DISCHARGE  OF  ASSIGNMENT. 


In  consideration  of  full  payment,  receipt  of  which  is 
hereby  acknowledged,  and  of  other  valuable  consider- 
ations, I  hereby  release  all right,  title  and 

interest    in    and   to    the  policy  or  contract  of  insurance 
known  as  issued  by 

LIFE  INSURANCE  COMPANY, 


and  the  assignment  executed is 

hereby  fully  discharged. 

Witness  my  hand  and  seal  this day 

of A.  D.  190  . 

[SEAL] 

State  of I 

County  of J 


ss. 


Be  It  Known  that  on  the day 

of A.  D.,  190  ,  before  me, 

a  Notary  Public  in  and  for  the  said  County  in  the 
State  aforesaid,  duly  commissioned  and  sworn,  per- 
sonally came  and  appeared 

of  lawful  age,  to  me  personally  known,  and  known  to 
me  to  be  the  person  described  in,  and  who  executed 
the  foregoing  instrument,  and  to  me  acknowledged  the 
same  to  be free  act  and  deed. 

In  Testimony  Whereof,  I  have  hereunto  subscribed  my 
name,  and  affixed  my  seal  of  office,  the  day  and  year  last 
above  written. 


RELEASE  OF  AN  ASSIGNMENT. 


Whereas,  By  a  certain  assignment,  dated day 

of ,  Policy  No issued 

by on  the  life  of 

was  transferred  to 

the  undersigned,  as  a  collateral  security  for  indebtedness. 

This  is  to  Certify,  That  the  said  indebtedness  has  been 
paid  in  full,  and  the  said  Policy  and  all  claims  thereunder 
are  hereby  restored  to  the  assignor  or  assignors  as  of  their 
former  rights  and  interests  as  they  existed  at  the  making 
of  such  assignment,  and  such  rights  and  interests  are  here- 
by acknowledged  to  have  reverted  to  them  as  if  the  above- 
mentioned  assignment  had  not  been  made. 

Witness hand  and  seal  ,  this day 

of one  thousand  nine  hundred  and 

[L.8. 

[L.  s. 

Sealed  and  delivered  in  presence  of 


RE-ASSIGNMENT   OF   POLICY. 


For  valuable  consideration,  the  receipt  whereof  is  here- 
by acknowledged, hereby  re-assign  and  re-trans- 
fer unto 

of of 

all right,  title  and  interest  in  and  to  Policy 

No issued  by  the Insurance  Com- 
pany, to  hold  the  same  unto  the  said 

absolutely  freed  and  discharged  from 

the  assignment  heretofore  made  to 

Witness hand    and    seal    at  , 

this day  of A.  D.,  19    . 

[SEAL] 

[SEAL] 

Signed,  sealed  and  delivered  in  presence  of 


59 


TABLE    OF    CASES    .CITED. 


1 

Beneficiary  may  sue  on  contract. 

Cal Kumle  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  42  Pac.,  634. 

Mass Nims  vs.  Ford,  35  N.  E.,  100 

"      Wright  vs.  Vermont  Life,  41  N.  E.,  303. 

Md Smith  vs.  B.  &  O.  Ry.  Co.,  32  Atl.,  181. 

R.  I Miunroe  vs.  Providence  Assn.,  34  Atl.,  149. 

Tex Pac.  Mut  L.  Ins.  Co.  vs.  Williams,  79 

633;  15  S.  W.,  478. 

2 

Mere  relationship  does  not  give  insurable  interest. 

Eng Reed  vs.  Royal  Ex.  Ass.  Co.,  Peake  Add.  C.,7O. 

"    Lucena  vs.  Crawford,  2  Bos.  &  P.  N.  R.,  270, 


"    Halford  vs.  Kymer,  10  Barn.  &  C,  724. 

"    Hebdon  vs.  West,  3  Best.  &  S.,  579. 

"    Shilling  vs.  Ace.  Death  Co.,  27  L.  J.  Ex.,  16. 

"    Ex  parte  Houghton,  17  Ves.,  252. 

Ind Elkhardt  vs.  Houghton,  103  Ind.,  286. 

Mass Forbes  vs.  Amer.  Mut.,  15  Gray,  249. 

"     Lord  vs.  Dall,  12  Mass.,  115. 

Mo Chisholm  vs.  Nat.  Life,  52  Mo.,  213. 

N.    C Trinity  College  vs.  Travelers,  113  N.  C,  244; 

18  S.  E.,  175- 

N.    Y Gratton  vs.  Nat.  Ins.  Co.,  15  Hun,  74. 

Pa Keystone  Mut.  vs.  Norris,  115  Pa.  St.,  466. 

" Reserve  Mut.  vs.  Kane,  81  Pa.  St.,  154. 

11 Appeal  of  Corson,  113  Pa.  St.,  438. 

" United  Ben.  Soc.  vs.  McDonald,   122  Pa.  St., 

324- 
U.    S Warnock  vs.  Davis,  104  U.  S.,  779. 

60 


3 

Insurable  interest  unnecessary  at  Common  Law. 

Eng Dalby  vs.  India  Ass.  Co.,  15  Com.  B.,  365,  386. 

Crawford  vs.  Hunter,  8  Term.  Rep.,  23. 

"     Cousins  vs.  Nantes,  3  Taunt.,  522. 

"     Dean  vs.  Dicker,  2  Str.,  1250. 

Irish Schweiger  vs.  Magee,  Cook  &  Ale.,  182. 

"  Shannon  vs.  Nugent,  Hayes,  536. 

Md Rittler  vs.  Smith,  70  Md.,  261. 

Mo Chisholm  vs.  Nat.  Ins.  Co.,  52  Mo.,  213. 

N.  J De  Ronga  vs.  Elliott,  23  N.  J.  Eq.,  486,  492. 

"    Trenton  Mut.  vs.  Tohnson,  4  Zabr.,  576. 

"     Vivas  vs.  Sup.  Lodge,  52  N.  J.  L.,  469. 

N.    Y Abbott  vs.  Sebor,  3  Johns.  Cas.,  39. 

"    Buchanan  vs.  Ocean  Ins.  Co.,  6  Cow.,  331. 

4 

Beneficiary  must  have  insurable  interest,  if  policy  not 
taken  out  by  the  insured. 

Ill Guardian  Ins.  Co.  vs.  Hogan,  80  111.,  36. 

Ind Amick  vs.  .Butler,  HI  Ind.,  578;  12  N.  E.,  518. 

"    Prudential  vs.  Jenkins,  43  N.  E.,  1056. 

"     Prudential  vs.  Hunn,  52  N.  K,  772. 

Ky Settle  vs.  Hill,  5  Ky.  L.  R.,  691. 

La Rombach  vs.  Piedmont  Co.,  35  La.  An.,  233. 

Me Mitchel  vs.  Union  Life,  45  Me.,  104. 

Mich Met.  Life  vs.  O'Brien,  92  Mich.,  584;  52  N.  W., 

1012. 
Mo Singleton  vs.  St.  Louis  Mut,  66  Mo.,  63. 

"  Whitmore  vs.  Sup.  Lodge,  100  Mo.,  36 ;  13  S. 

W.,  495- 
N.  C Burbage  vs.  Windley,  108  N.  C,  357;  12  S.  E., 

*7S- 

"     Powel  vs.  Mut.  Ben.,  31  S.  E.,  381. 

N.  Y.  .       .  Ruse  vs.  Mut.  Ben.,  23  N.  Y.,  516. 

Pa Stoner  vs.  Line,  16  W.  N.  C,  187. 

Fed Brockway  vs.  Mut.  Ben.,  9  Fed.,  249. 

Eng Worthington  vs.  Curtis,  I  Ch.  Div.,  419. 

"     Howard  vs.  Refuge  F.  Soc.,  54  L.  T.,  644. 

See  also:— Art.  i,  Sec.  55,  N.  Y.  Ins.  Law. 

61 


5 

Where  insured  takes  out  the  insurance,  Beneficiary  need 
have  no  insurable  interest. 

Col Goodrich  vs.  Treat,  3  Col.,  408. 

Conn Lemon  vs.  Phoenix  Mut,  38  Conn.,  294. 

"     Allen  vs.  Hartford  Life,  45  At,  955. 

D.  C U.  S.  Mut.  vs.  Hodgkin,  4  App.  D.  C,  516. 

Fed Fidelity  Mut.  vs.  Jeffords,  107  Fed.,  402  (Ga.) 

"   Robinson  vs.  U.  S.  Assn.,  68  Fed.  825  (Mo.) 

"   Langdon  vs.  Union  Mut.,  14  Fed.,  272. 

Ga Equitable  vs.  Paterson,  41  Ga.,  338. 

" A.  O.  U.  W.  vs.  Brown,  37  S.  E.,  890. 

" Union  League  vs.  Walton,  34  S.  E.,  317. 

Ill ....  Bloomington  Mut  vs.  Blue,  120  111.,  121 ;  u  N. 

K,  331- 

" Johnson  vs.  Van  Epps,  no  111.,  551. 

Ind Milner  vs.  Bowman  (dicta),  21  N.  E.,  1097. 

" Prov.  Life  vs.  Baum,  29  Ind.,  236. 

" Prudential  vs.  Hunn,  52  N.  E.,  772. 

Mass Campbell  vs.  N.  E.  Mut,  98  Mass.,  381. 

"    Mut.  Life  vs.  Allen,  138  Mass.,  24. 

Mich Heinlein  vs.  Imperial  Life,  101  Mich.,  250;  59 

N.  W.,  615. 

Miss Murphy  vs.  Redd,  64  Miss.,  614. 

Mo Masonic  Assn.  vs.  Bunch,  109  Mo.,  560;  19  S. 

W.,  25. 

" Reynolds  vs.  Prudential,  88  Mo.  App.,  679. 

"  Van  Cleave    vs.  Union    Casualty    Co.,  82  Mo. 

App.,  668. 

N.    C Albert  vs.  Mut.  Life,  122  N.  C,  92;  30  S.  R, 

327- 

N.  J Vivar  vs.  Sup.  Lodge,  52  N.  J.L.,  455 ;  20  At,  36. 

N.   Y Olmsted  vs.  Keyes,  85  N.  Y,  593. 

"    .Massey  vs.  Rochester  Soc.,  102  N.  Y.,  523. 

"    Sabin  vs.  Phinney,  134  N.  Y.,  423. 

"    Freeman  vs.  Nat.  Ben.  Soc.,  42  Hun,  252. 

"    Corbett  vs.  Metropolitan,  55  N.  Y.  Supp.,  775. 

Ohio Eckel  vs.  Renner,  41  Ohio  St.,  232. 

Pa Cunningham  vs.  Smith,  70  Pa.  St.,  450. 

" Scott  vs.  Dickson,  108  Pa.  St.,  6. 

" Overbeck  vs.  Overbeck,  155  Pa.  St.,  5;  25  At, 

646. 

62 


Pa Hall  vs.  U.  S.  Life  Assn.,  154  Pa.  St.,  29. 

" Ducksbury  vs.  Sup.  Lodge,  4  Lack.  Leg.  News, 

172. 

S.  C Cross  well  vs.  Conn.  Assn.,  51  S.  C,  103;  28  S. 

E.,  200. 

Vt Fairchild  vs.  Northeastern,  51  Vt,  613. 

See  also  dicta  in : — 
Conn.  Mut  vs.  Schaeffer,  94  U.  S.,  457. 
Aetna  Life  vs.  France,  94  U.  S.,  561. 

6 

Beneficiary  must  have  insurable  interest  in  all  cases. 

Ind Indiana  Ins.  Law,  Sec.  226. 

Ill Illinois  Ins.  Law  (Assessment  Plan). 

Ky Coudell  vs.  Woodward,  29  S.  W.,  614;  16  Ky. 

L.  R.,  742. 

"    Basye  ,vs.  Adams,  81  Ky.,  368. 

N.  C Trinity  College  vs.  Ins.  Co.,  113  N.  C,  244. 

Mich .Michigan  Ins.  Law,  Par.  7512  (6l). 

Mo Missouri  Ins.  Law,  Sec.  7926. 

Pa Pennsylvania  Ins.  Law,  Sec.  2,  Act.  1883  (P. 

L.,8o). 

7 

Termination  of  insurable  interest  does  not  avoid  the 
contract. 

Eng Dalby  vs.  India  Ass.  Co.,  15  C.  B.,  1850. 

Iowa Carter  vs.  Humboldt  Ins.  Co.,  12  la.,  287. 

Mass Mut.  Life  vs.  Allen,  138  Mass.,  24. 

"    Wilson  vs.  Hill,  3  Met,  66. 

N.  Y Rawles  vs.  Amer.  M.  L.  I.  C,  27  N.  Y.,  282. 

Ohio Sup.  Commandery  vs.  Everding,  20  Ohio  Cir. 

Ct,  689. 

Pa Appeal  of  Corson,  113  Pa.  St.,  445 ;  6  At,  213. 

" Lazarus  vs.  Ins.  Co.,  19  Pick.,  81. 

" Corson  vs.  Gamier,  15  Weekly  Notes,  451. 

R.    I Mowry  vs.  Home  Life,  9  R.  I.,  346. 

U.  S Carpenter  vs.  Ins.  Co.,  16  Pet.,  495. 

" Connecticut  Mut.  vs.  Schaefer,  94  U.  S.,  457. 

"  Ins.  Co.  vs.  Bailey,  13  Wall.  (U.  S.),  616. 

" Sides  vs.  Knickerbocker  Life,  16  Fed.,  650. 

63 


In  Mutual  Benefit  Insurance  the  Beneficiary  must  be 
within  prescribed  class;  if  he  is  not,  the  proceeds  go  to 
those  who  would  take  had  no  Beneficiary  been  named. 

Fed Worley  vs.  N.  W.  Mas.  Assn.,  10  Fed.,  227. 

"   Gentry  vs.  Sup.  Lodge,  23  Fed.,  718. 

Ill N.  O.  P.  H.  Soc.  vs.  Wilson,  52  N.  E.,  41. 

Palmer  vs.  Welch,  132  111.,  141 ;  23  N.  E.,  412. 

Alexander  vs.  Parker,  144  111.,  355;  33  N.  E., 

183. 

Grimme  vs.  Grimme,  64  N.  E.,  1088. 

Highland  vs.  Highland,  109  111.,  336. 

.......  Swift  vs.  Ry.  Conductors'  Assn.,  96  111.,  309. 

Ind Presbyterian  Fund  vs.  Allen,  106  Ind.,  593. 

Iowa McClure  vs.  Johnson,  56  la.,  620. 

"     Mitchell  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  70  la.,  360 ;  30  N. 

W.,  865. 

Ky Duvall  vs.  Goodson,  79  Ky.,  224. 

"    Basye  vs.  Adams,  81  Ky.,  368. 

"    Gibson  vs.  Ky.  Grangers,  8  Ky.  L.  R.,  520. 

"    Ky.  Grangers  vs.  McGregor,  7  Ky.  L.  R.,  550. 

"    Van  Bibber,  Admr.,  vs.  Van  Bibber,  82  Ky.,  347. 

"    Beard  vs.  Sharpe,  38  S.  W.,  1057. 

''    Leaf  vs.  Leaf,  92  Ky.,  166;  17  S.  W.,  354. 

Mass Clark    vs.  Shwartzenberg,  162    Mass.,  289;  35 

N.  E.,  855;  4i  N.  E.,  655- 

Amer.  L.  of  H.  vs.  Perry,  140  Mass.,  580. 

"     Daniels  vs.  Pratt,  143  Mass.,  216;  10  N.  E.,  166. 

"     Ridge  vs.  N.  E.  Mutual,  146  Mass.,  286;  16  N. 

E,  628. 

"     Burns  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  153  Mass.,  173;  26  N. 

E.,  443- 

Sargent  vs.  Sup.  Lodge,  158  Mass.,  557;  33  N. 

E.,  650. 

"     Shea  vs.  Mass.  Ben.  Assn.,  176  Mass.,  289;  35 

N.  E.,  855. 

'*     Skillings  vs.  Mass.  Ben.  Assn.,  146  Mass.,  217; 

15  N.  E.,  566. 

"     Rice  vs.  N.  E.  M.  A.  Soc.,  146  Mass.,  248;  15 

N.  E.,  624. 

"     Smith  vs.  B.  &  M.  R.  R.  Assn.,  46  N.  E.,  626. 

Mich Sup.  Lodge  vs.  Nairn,  60  Mich.,  44;  26  N.  W., 

826. 

64 


Mich  .  . .     Mich.  Mut.  vs.  Rolfe,  76  Mich.,  146. 

"     Lyon  vs.  Rolfe,  42  N.  W.,  1094. 

Mich Wolf  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  102  Mich.,  23 ;  60  N. 

W.,  445- 

Minn Walter  vs.  Oddfellows,  42  Minn.,  20^1 ;  44  N. 

W.,  57- 

M/iss Carson  vs.  Vicksburg  Bank,  22  So.,  i. 

Mo . .  ..Keener  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  38  Mo.  App.,  543. 

"    Expressmen's  vs.  Lewis,  9  Mo.  App.,  412. 

Neb Fisher  vs.  Donovan,  57  Neb.,  361;  77  N.  W., 

778. 

N.  J Amer.  L.  of  H.  vs.  Smith,  45  N.  J.  Eq.,  466. 

"    Britton  vs.  Sup.  Council,  46  N.  J.  Eq.,  102 ;  18 

At.,  675. 

"    Grand  Lodge  vs.  Connolly,  43  At,  286. 

N.   Y Armstrong  vs.  Warren,  64  N.  Y.  St.,  291. 

"    Simon  vs.  O'Brien,  87  Hun,  160. 

"    Boasberg  vs.  Cronan,  9  N.  Y.  Supp.,  664. 

"    Bishop  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  112  N.  Y.,  627;  20  N. 

E.,  562. 

"    Mlassey  vs.  Mut.  Relief  Soc.,  102  N.  Y.,  523 ;  7 

N.  E.,  619. 

Ohio Nat.  Mut.  Ben.  vs.  Gonser,  43  Ohio  St.,  i. 

"     State  vs.  People's  M.  B.  Assn.,  42  Ohio  St.,  579. 

"     State  vs.  Moore,  38  Ohio  St.,  7. 

'    State  vs.  Standard  Life,  38  Ohio  St.,  281. 

"    McGuiness  vs.  Sup.  Council,  53  N.  E.,  54. 

Pa Arthars  vs.  Baird,  8  Pa.  Co.,  67. 

Texas Schonfield  vs.  Turner,  75  Tex.,  324. 

Wis. Ballou  vs.  Gile,  50  Wis.,  614. 

"     Dietrich  vs.  Madison  Assn.,  45  Wis.,  79. 

" Groth  vs.  Central  Verein.  70  N.  W.,  80. 

See  also  statutes  of 

Connecticut,  Idaho,  Illinois,  Indiana,  Iowa, 
Maine,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Michi- 
gan, Nebraska,  New  York,  Pennsylvania, 
South  Dakota,  Texas,  Virginia,  Washing- 
ton and  Wisconsin. 

9 

Charter  and  By-Laws  of  Mutual  Benefit  Society  will  be 
liberally  construed. 

Ind Sup.  Lodge,  K.  of  P.,  vs.  Schmidt,  98  Ind.,  374. 

65 


Mass Amer.  L.  of  H.  vs.  Perry,  140  Mass.,  .580 

"     Elsey  vs.  Oddfellows,  142  Mass.,  224, 

Pa  ...         Maneely  vs.  Knights  of  B.,  115  Pa.  St.,  305;  9 

Atl.,  41. 
Wis Ballou  vs.  Gile,  50  Wis.,  614. 

10 

An  enlarging  Statute  need  not  be  formally  adopted  by 
the  Society. 

Mass Marsh  vs.  Supreme  Council,  149  Mass.,  512 ;  21 

N.  K,  1070. 

11 

Restricting  Statutes  do  not  affect  Certificates  in  force 
at  the  time  of  passage. 

Iowa Lindsey  vs.  Western  M.  A.  Soc.,  84  la.,  734 ;  50 

N.  W.,  29. 
N,Y Spencer  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  48  N.  Y.  Supp.,  590. 

12 

Designation  of  Beneficiary  in  Mutual  Benefit  Insur- 
ance is  an  act  of  a  testamentary  nature. 

Col Chartrand  vs.  Brace,  16  Col.,  19 ;  26  Pac.,  152. 

Conn Continental  Life  vs.   Palmer,  42  Conn.,  64. 

D.  C Wash.  Assn.  vs.  Wood,  4  Mackey,  19. 

Ky Duyall  vs.  Goodson,  79  Ky.,  228. 

Mich Union  Mut.  vs.  Montgomery,  70  Mich.,  587;  38 

N.  W.,  588. 

Mo Nat.  Amer.  Assn.  vs.  Kirgin,  28  Mo.  App.,  80. 

"    Masonic  Assn.  vs.  Bunch,  109  Mo.,  560;  19  S. 

W.,  25. 

N.  Y Aiken  vs.  Mass.  Ben.  Assn.,  13  N.  Y.  Supp.,  579. 

Tex Thomas  vs.  Leake,  67  Tex.,  469;  3  S.  W.,  703. 

13 

Where  there  is  no  valid  designation  of  Beneficiary,  the 
Society  is  liable  to  no  one. 

Cal Order  of  M.  C.  vs.  Griest,  76  Cal.,  494. 

Neb Warner  vs.  Modern  Woodmen,  93  N.  W.,  397. 

66 


N.  H Eastman  vs.  Prov.  Mut  Rel.  Assn.,  62  N.  H., 

N.    Y Helienberg  vs.  I.  O.  B.  B.,  94  N.  Y.,  580. 

Fed Merely  vs.  Northwestern  Assn.,  10  Fed.,  237. 

But  see:— 

Mass Hadley  vs.  Oddfellows,  54  N.  K,  345. 

Mich Wolf  vs.  Dist.  Lodge,  102  Mich.,  23;  60  N.  W., 

445- 

N.  J Martin  vs.  Golden  Star  Frat.,  18  N.  J.  L.  J.,  48. 

N.Y Bishop  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  112  N.  Y.,  627. 


14 

Creditor   has   Insurable   Interest   in   the   life   of   his 
Debtor. 

Cal Curtis  vs.  Aetna  Life,  90  Cal.,  245 ;  27  Pac.,  211. 

Conn Fitzgerald  vs.  Hartford  Life,  56  Conn.,  116;  13 

Atl.,  673. 

Bevin  vs.  Conn.  Ins.  Co.,  23  Conn.,  244. 

Ill Guardian  Mut.  Life  vs.  Hogan,  80  III,  35. 

Ind Nye  vs.  A.  O.  U.  W.,  36  N.  E.,  429. 

"   Amick  vs.  Butler,  in  Ind.,  578;  12  N.  E.,  518. 

"   Walker  vs.  Larkins,  127  Ind.,  100;  26  N.  E., 

684- 

Iowa Belknap  vs.  Johnson,  86  N.  W.,  267. 

La Succession  of  Hearing,  26  La.  Ann.,  326. 

Md Rittler  vs.  Smith,  70  Md.,  261 ;  16  Atl.,  890. 

Mass Morrell  vs.  Trenton  Ins.  Co.,  10  Cush.,  282. 

Minn Hale  vs.  Life  Indemnity  Co.,  68  N.  W.,  182. 

Mo. Parks  vs.  Conn.  Ins.  Co.,  26  Mo.  App.,  511. 

N.  J Trenton  Mut.  vs.  Johnson,  24  N.  J.  L.,  576. 

N.   Y Rawls  vs.  Amer.  Mut.  Life,  27  N.  Y.,  282. 

Pa .Amer.  Co.  vs.  Robertshaw,  26  Pa.  St.,  189. 

'    Cunningham  vs.  Smith's  Exr.,  70  Pa.  St.,  45. 

'    Shaffer  vs.  Spangler,  22  Atl.,  865. 

*    Ulrich  vs.  Reinoehl,  22  Atl.,  862;  143  Pa.  St., 

238. 

R.    I Mfowry  vs.  Home  Ins.  Co.,  9  R.  L,  346. 

S.  C Rivers  vs.  Gregg,  5  Rich.  Eq.,  274. 

Tex Equitable  vs.  Hazelwood,  75  Tex.    338;  12  S. 

W.,  621. 


15 

Wager  policy  is  void.  Beneficiary  (if  a  Creditor)  may 
hold  as  his  own  only  so  much  of  the  proceeds  as  will  pay 
the  debt. 

Ga Exchange  Bank  vs.  Loh,  104  Ga.,  446. 

Md Rittler  vs.  Smith,  70  Md.,  261. 

Pa Ulrich  vs.  Reinoehl,  143  Pa.  St.,  238. 

'    Grant  vs.  Kline,  115  Pa.  St.,  618. 

Cooper  vs.  Schaefer,  n  Atl.,  548. 

U.  S Cammack  vs.  Lewis,  15  Wall.,  643. 

r    Warnock  vs.  Davis,  94  U.  S.,  775. 

16 

Creditor  Beneficiary  may  hold  as  his  own  only  so  much 
of  the  proceeds  as  will  pay  the  debt  with  expenses  and 
interest. 

Ga Exchange  Bank  vs.  Loh,  31  S.  E.,  459;  104  Ga., 

446. 

S.  C Rivers  vs.  Gregg,  5  Rich.  Eq.,  274. 

Tex Cheeves  vs.  Anders,  87  Tex.,  287;  28  S.  W.,  274. 

"    Equitable  vs.  Hazlewood,  12  S.  W.,  621. 

"   Goldbaum  vs.  Blum,  15  S.  W.,  564. 

Vt Coon  vs.  Swan,  30  Vt.,  6. 

U.  :S Crotty  vs.  Union  Mut,  12  S.  C.  Rep.,  749. 

Contra : 

Ind Amick  vs.  Butler,  in  Ind.,  578;  12  N.  E.,  518. 

"    Nye  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  36  N.  E.,  429. 

Md Rittler  vs.  Smith,  70  Md.,  261 ;  16  Atl.,  890. 

N.  Y Rawles  vs.  Amer.  Mut,  27  N.  Y.,  282. 

"    Olmsted  vs.  Keyes,  85  N.  Y.,  593,  598. 

Pa Hill  vs.  U.  S.  Life,  25  Atl.,  771. 

" Grant  vs.  Kline,  9  Atl.,  150. 

" Ulrich  vs.  Reinoehl,  143  Pa.  St.,  238;  22  Atl., 

862. 
" Shaffer  vs.  Spangler,  22  Atl.,  865. 

17 

Proceeds  of  Mutual  Benefit  Certificate  cannot  be 
reached  by  creditors  of  insured  member. 

Cal Swift  vs.  San  Fran.  Board,  67  Cal.,  567. 

Ky Masonic  Mut.  vs.  Miller,  13  Bush.,  489. 

68 


Md Md.  Soc.  vs.  Clendiner,  44  Md.,  429. 

Mich C.  M.  Ben.  Assn.  vs.  Priest,  46  Mich.,  429. 

Neb Warner  vs.  Modern  Woodmen,  93  N.  W.,  397. 

N.  Y Bishop  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  112  N.  Y.,  627. 

'    Hellenberg  vs.  Dist.  No.  i,  94  N.  Y.,  580. 

Ohio Arthur  vs.  Odd  Fellows,  29  Ohio  St.,  557. 

"   In  re  Andress,  Ohio  Leg.  News,  April  3,  1897. 

Pa Vollman's  Appeal,  92  Pa.  St.,  50. 

" Brethren  Soc.  vs.  Grove,  6  Weekly  Note  Cas., 

328. 
Wis Ballou  vs.  Gile,  50  Wis.,  614. 

18 

In  the  following  jurisdictions,  the  proceeds  of  a  mutual 
benefit  certificate  are  exempt  by  statute  from  the  claims  of 
creditors  of  the  insured  or  the  creditors  of  the  beneficiary 
or  the  creditors  of  both : 

California,  Connecticut,  District  of  Columbia,  Idaho, 
Indiana,  Kentucky,  Kansas,  Maine,  Michigan,  Minpesota, 
Mississippi,  Missouri,  Montana,  Nevada,  New  Hampshire, 
New  Mexico,  New  York,  North  Dakota,  Ohio,  Rhode  Isl- 
and, South  Dakota,  Tennessee,  Vermont,  West  Virginia, 
Wisconsin  and  Wyoming. 

19 

Creditors  of  insured  cannot  reach  the  proceeds  of  a 
regular  life  insurance  policy  unless  premiums  were  paid 
or  policy  was  taken  out  in  fraud  of  creditors. 

Ala Friedman  vs.  Fennell,  04  Ala.,  570. 

K Lehman  vs.  Gunn,  27  So.,  475. 

Col Hendrie  Co.  vs.  Platt,  56  Pac.,  209. 

Fla Eppinger  vs.  Canepa,  20  Fla.,  262. 

Ga Hubbard  vs.  Turner,  20  S.  E.,  640. 

Ind Pence  vs.  Makepeace,  65  Ind.,  345. 

Ky Hise  vs.  Hartford  Life,  1 1  Ky.  L.  R.,  924. 

*  Moorehead's  Admr.  vs.  Mayf ield,  58  S.  W.,  473. 

Mich Ionia  Bk.  vs.  MicLean,  84  Mich.,  625. 

Miss Jones  vs.  Patty,  18  So.,  794. 

Mo First  Nat'l  B'k  vs.  Simpson,  54  S.  W.,  506. 

Mo Mut.  Life  vs.  Sandf elder,  9  Mo.  App.,  285. 

N.  Y Holmes  vs.  Gilman,  138  N.  Y.,  369. 

" Dayton  vs.  Claflin  Co.,  45  N.  Y.  Supp.,  1005. 

69 


NY Reynolds  vs.  Aetna  Life,  55  N.  E.,  305. 

Ohio Weber  vs.  Paxton,  48  Ohio  St.,  266. 

U.  S Central  Bk.  vs.  Hume,  128  U.  S.,  195. 

20 

By  statute  in  the  following  jurisdictions  the  proceeds 
of  a  policy  payable  to  the  wife,  wife  and  children,  or  a 
married  woman,  cannot  be  reached  by  the  creditors  or  rep- 
resentatives of  the  insured;  the  amount  of  premiums  paid 
annually,  or  the  amount  of  insurance  which  is  so  protected, 
is  usually  limited : 

Alabama,  Connecticut,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Iowa,  Maine, 
Massachusetts,  Michigan,  Minnesota,  Mississippi,  Mis- 
souri, New  Hampshire,  New  Jersey,  New  York,  North 
Carolina,  Ohio,  Oklahoma,  Pennsylvania,  South  Carolina, 
South  Dakota,  Tennessee,  Vermont  and  Wisconsin.  See 
in  this  connection : 

48  Central  Law  Journal,  307. 
25  Amer.  Law  Review,  185 ;  also, 
Ala Tompkins  vs.  Levy,  87  Ala.,  263. 

"    Felrath  vs.  Shonf eld,  76  Ala.,  199. 

"    Stone  vs.  Knickerbocker  Life,  52  Ala.,  589. 

"    Fearn  vs.  Ward,  65  Ala.,  333. 

Conn Bartram  vs.  Hopkins,  42  At.,  645. 

D.  C Central  Bk.  vs.  Hume,  128  U.  S.,  195. 

Fla Eppinger  vs.  Caneppa,  20  Fla.,  262. 

la Cook  vs.  Alice,  93  N.  W.,  93. 

" Larrabee  vs.  Palmer,  70  N.  W.,  100. 

" Rhode  vs.  Bank,  52  la.,  375. 

"  Smealy  vs.  Felt,  43  la.,  607. 

Ill Pinneo  vs.  Goodspeed,  120  111.,  536. 

"  Pingree  vs.  Jones,  80  111.,  177. 


Ely  vs.  Ely,  80  111.,  532. 
111., 


"  Cole  vs.  Marple,  98  111.,  58. 

Ind Pence  vs.  Makepeace,  65  Ind.,  345. 

Miss Coates  vs.  Worthy,  17  So.,  606. 

"    Yale  vs.  McLaurin,  66  Miss.,  461. 

Mo Judson  vs.  Walker,  55  S.  W.,  1083. 

" Pullis  vs.  Rpbison,  73  Mo.,  201. 

u Reed  vs.  Painter,  31  S.  W.,  919. 

"  Kiely  vs.  Hickox,  70  Mo.  App.,  617. 

N.  Y Milhous  vs.  Johnson,  4  N.  Y.  Supp.,  199. 

70 


N.Y Stokes  vs.  Amerman,  24  N.  E.,  8iQ. 

"    Kittel  vs.  Domeyer,  70  App.  Div.,  134. 

Sherman  vs.  Allison,  80  N.  Y.  Supp.,  148. 

Ohio Jacob  vs.  Continental  Life,  i  C.  S.  C.  R.,  5*9- 

Pa McCutcheon's  Appeal,  99  Pa.  St.,  133. 

S.  C Barron  vs.  Williams,  36  S.  E.,  561. 

S.  D Skinner  vs.  Holt,  69  N.  W.,  595. 

Tenn Rose  vs.  Wortham,  32  S.  W.,  458. 

"    Harvey  vs.  Harrison,  89  Tenn.,  470;  14  S.  W., 

1038. 
Wis Ellison  vs.  Straw,  92  N.  W.,  1094. 

21 

Endowment  Policy   not   protected   by    Wife's  Policy 
laws. 

Neb Talcott  vs.  Fields,  34  Neb.,  611 ;  52  N.  W.,  400. 

Contra : 
Cal Briggs  vs.  McCullough,  36  Cal.,  550. 

22 

Policy  assigned  to  wife  not  protected  by  Wife's  Policy 
laws. 

Ky Moorehead's  Admr.  vs.  Mayfield,  58  S.  W.,  473- 

Mich Ionia  Bk.  vs.  McLean,  84  Mich.,  625 ;  48  N.  W., 

159- 

Ohio Cross  vs.  Armstrong,  44  Ohio  St.,  613;  10  N. 

E.,  160. 

Pa Elliott's  Appeal,  50  Pa.  St.,  75. 

"  McCutcheon's  Appeal,  99  Pa.  St.,  133. 

Contra : 

111 Cole  vs.  Marple,  98  111.,  58. 

Mo Judson  vs.  Walker,  55  S.  W.,  1083. 

See  also 
Statutes  of  Connecticut  and  Masachusetts. 

23 

Proceeds  of  ztrife's  policy  may  be  reached  by  her  creditors. 

la Murray  vs.  Wells,  53  la.,  256. 

Miss Rice  vs.  Smith,  72  Miss.,  42. 

N.  Y Amberg  vs.  Manhattan  Life,  63  N.  E.,  mi. 

"     Commercial  Travelers  vs.  Newkirk,  16  N.  Y. 

Supp.,  177. 
"    Wellington  vs.  Fox,  13  N.  Y.  Supp.,  334. 


24 

Act  July  i,  1898,  ch.  541,  sec.  ;oa,  30  Stat.  565. 

25 

Held  that  sec.  6  of  the  Bankr.  Act  did  not 

apply : 

In  re  Lange,  91  Fed.,  361. 
In  re  Steele,  98  Fed.,  78. 
In  re  Holden,  114  Fed.,  650. 

Contra : 
Steele  vs.  Buel,  104  Fed.,  968. 

26 

In  re  Welling,  113  Fed.,  189. 
In  re  Slingluff,  106  Fed.,  154, 
In  re  Bpardman,  103  Fed.,  783. 
In  re  Diack,  100  Fed.,  770. 

Where  policy  had  no  cash  surrender  value, 
see 

Ga Morris  vs.  Dodd,  36  S.  E.,  83. 

In  re  Buelow,  98  Fed.,  86. 

27 

As  to  Bankruptcy,  see  also  the  note  to 
Morris  vs.  Dodd,  in  5  Lawyers'  R.  A-> 
33;  also,  Haskell  vs.  Equitable,  63  N. 
E.,  899- 

28 

Policy  payable  to  "heirs,  executors,  administrators  or 
assigns"  Construction  of. 

Ga Rawson  vs.  Jones,  52  Ga.,  458. 

N.  Y Griswold  vs.  Sawyer,  8  N.  Y.  Supp.,  517. 

29 

Policy  payable  to  "Estate"  of  insured,  Construction  of. 

Ky Basye  vs.  Adams,  81  Ky.,  368. 

Mass Daniel's  Exr.  vs.  Pratt,  143  Mass.,  216. 

30 

"Heirs"  in  life  insurance  contract  means  those  who  are 
entitled  to  insured 's  personalty. 
Ala Tompkins  vs.  Levy,  6  So.,  346. 

72 


Ark Johnson  vs.  Sup.  Lodge,  53  Ark.,  242;  13  S. 

W.,  794- 

Conn Mullen  vs.  Reed,  64  Conn.,  240;  29  At.,  478. 

Ga Hubbard  vs.  Turner,  20  S.  K,  640. 

Ill Richards  vs.  Miller,  62  111.,  420. 

"  Rawson  vs.  Rawson,  52  111.,  62. 

" Alexander  vs.  Northwestern,  18  N.  E.,  556. 

Ky Weisert  vs.  Muehl,  81  Ky.,  336. 

Mass Sweet  vs.  Button,  109  Mass.,  589,  591. 

"   Houghton  vs.  Kendall,  7  Allen,  72. 

"    Codman  vs.  Krell,  152  Mass.,  214 ;  25  N.  E.,  90. 

Me Mace  vs.  Cushman,  45  Me.,  250. 

Mich Lyons  vs.  Yerex,  100  Mich.,  214;  58  N.  W.,  112. 

N.  J Welsh  vs.  Crater,  32  N.  J.  Eq.,  177. 

"    Leavitt  vs.  Dunn,  28  At}.,  590. 

"    Britton  vs.  Sup.  Council,  46  N.  J.  Eq.,  102;  18 

At,  675. 

N.  Y Bishop  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  112  N.  Y.,  627;  20  N. 

E.,  562. 

"    Walsh  vs.  Walsh,  20  N.  Y.  Supp.,  933- 

"    Knights  Templars  vs.  Greene  79  Fed.,  461. 

Ohio Young  Men's  Assn.  vs.  Pollard,  3  Ohio  Cir. 

Ct,  577- 

"    In  re  Anders,  6  Ohio  Dec.,  174. 

Pa N.  W.  Masonic  vs.  Jones,  154  Pa.  St.,  99;  26 

At.,  253. 

" Ely's  Appeal,  84  Pa.  St.,  241. 

Tex Hanna  vs.  Hanna,  30  S.  W.,  820. 

But  see:— 

la Phillips  vs.  Carpenter,  44  N.  W.,  898. 

Ill Gauch  vs.  St.  Louis  Mut.,  88  111.,  251. 


31 

Policy  payable  to  "Legal  Representatives,"  Construc- 
tion of. 

la Kelley  vs.  Mann,  56  la.,  625 ;  10  N.  W.,  211. 

Ill Johnson  vs.  Van  Epps,  100  III,  551. 

"  People  vs.  Phelps,  78  111.,  147. 

Mass Wason  ,vs.  Colburn,  99  Mass.,  342. 

Minn Walter  vs.  Odd  Fellows,  42  Minn.,  204;  44  N. 

W.,  57- 

73 


N.  Y Sulz  vs.  Mut  Reserve,  40  N.  E.,  242. 

Tex Pittel  vs.  Fidelity  Mut,  86  Fed.,  255. 

But  seer- 
Minn Schultz  vs.  Citizens  Mut.,  61  N.  W.,  331. 

Mo Loos  vs.  John  Hancock  Co.,  41  Mo.,  538. 

N'Y Griswold  vs.  Sawyer,  125  N.  Y.,  411;  26  N.  E., 

464. 

1    Hirsh  vs.  Mayer,  59  ,N.  E.,  89. 

Tenn Rose  vs.  Wortham,  32  S.  W.,  458. 

32 

"If  living'  means  living  at  the  time  of  insured 's  death. 

Colo Chartrand  vs.  Brace,  16  Colo.,  19;  26  Pac.,  152. 

Tex Thomas  vs.  Leake,  67  Tex.,  469 ;  3  S.  W.,  703. 

33 

There  is  no  Presumption  of  Survivorship — the  Burden 
of  Proof  is  upon  the  party  asserting  survivorship. 

Me Johnson  vs.  Merithew,  80  Me.,  in  ;  13  At,  132. 

Md Cowman  vs.  Rogers,  73  Mid.,  403 ;  21  At,  64. 

Mass Fuller  vs.  Linzee,  135  Mass.,  468. 

Mo Sup.  Council  vs.  Kacer,  69  S.  W.,  671. 

"    U.  S.  Casualty  Co.  vs.  Kacer,  69  S.  W.,  470. 

N.  Y Newell  vs.  Nichols,  75  N.  Y.,  78. 

Tex Hildebrandt  vs.  Ames,  66  S.  W.,  128. 

"    Males  vs.  Sovereign  Camp,  70  S.  W.,  108. 

"   ...  Paden  vs.  Briscoe,  81  Tex.,  503 ;  17  S.  W.,  42. 

See  also  in  this  connection  : — 
i  Greenleafs  Ev.,  sec.  29,  30;  Best  Ev.,  304;  2 
Whart.  Ev.,  Sec.  1280;  2  Kent's  Comm., 
572. 
,  But  see: — 

Louisiana  Civ.  Code,  art.  93O-933  J  76  Cal.,  649. 

34 

"Relatives"  includes  those  by  marriage  as  well  as  those 
by  blood. 

la Simcoke  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  84  la.,  383;  51  N. 

W,  8. 
Me Spear  vs.  Robinson,  29  Me.,  531. 

74 


Mass Anthony  vs.  Mass.  Assn.,  158  Mass.,  322;  33  N. 

E.,  577- 

N.  J Bennett  vs.  Van  Ripper,  47  N.  J.  Eq.,  563;  22 

At.,  785- 

But  see: — 

Mass Esty  vs.  Clark,  101  Mass.,  36. 

Kimball  vs.  Story,  108  Mass.,  582. 

Pa. ......  .Storey  vs.  Wheatley,  I  Pa.  St.,  506. 

35 

"Relatives"  does  not  include  an  illegitimate  child. 
Mass Lavigne  vs.  Ligue  des  Patriotes,  178  Mass.,  25. 

36 

"Dependents"  includes  those  actually  dependent  upon 
insured  for  support. 

Ill Palmer  vs.  Welch,  132  111.,  141 ;  23  N.  E.,  412. 

" Alexander  vs.  Parker,  144  111.,  355 ;  33  N.  E., 

183. 

Ky Wolf  vs.  Pearce,  45  S.  W,,  865. 

Mass Elsey  vs.  Odd  Fellows,  142  Mass.,  224. 

"    McCarthy  vs.  Sup.  Lodge,  153  Mass.,  314;  26 

N.  E,  866. 
"    Sup.  Court    vs.    Perry,    140   Mass.,  580;  5  N. 

E.,  634- 

Mich Carmichael  vs.  N.  W.  Assn.,  51  Mich.,  494. 

Mo Wagner  vs.  St.  Francis  Soc.,  70  Mo.  App.,  161. 

N.  J Sup.  Council  vs.  Smith,  45  N.  J.  Eq.,  466;  17 

At,  770. 

N.  Y Hanley  vs.  Supreme  Tent,  38  Misc.,  161. 

Tex Grand  Lodge  vs.  Bollman,  53  S.  W.,  829. 

Wis Ballou  vs.  Gile,  50  Wis.,  614;  7  N.  W.,  561. 

37 

"Dependents"  does  not  include  a  creditor. 

Skillings  vs.  Mass.  Assn.,  146  Mass.,  217;  15 
N.  E.,  566. 

38 

"Dependents"    does    not    include    a    concubine,    even 
though  actually  dependent. 
Mo Grand  Lodge  vs.  Hanses,  81  Mo.  App.,  545. 

75 


Mo Keener  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  36  Mo.  App.,  543. 

Tex West  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  37  S.  W.,  966. 

39 

"Dependents"  includes  a  woman  living  bona  fide  with 
insured^  believing  herself  to  be  legally  married. 

Ind Sup.  Lodge  vs.  Hutchinson,  33  N.  E.,  816. 

Mich Sup.  Tent  vs.  McAllister,  92  N.  W.,  770. 

N.  Y Story  vs.  Assn.,  95  N.  Y.,  474. 


40 

Divorce  does  not  terminate  wife's  interest  in  a  regular 
life  insurance  policy. 

Col Overhiser  vs.  Overhiser,  59  Pac.,  75. 

Conn Phoenix  Ins.  Co.  vs.  Dunham,  46  Conn.,  79. 

Mo McKee  vs.  Phoenix  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  28  Mo.,  383. 

Ohio In  re  Insurance  Policy,  7  Ohio  N.  P.,  527. 

"    Overhiser's  Admx.  vs.  Overhiser,  57  N.  E.,  965. 

R    I Aetna  Life  vs.  Mason,  14  R.  I.,  583. 

U.  S Conn.  Mut.  vs.  Schaeffer,  94  U.  S.,  457. 


41 

Divorce  a  mensa  et  thoro  does  not  terminate  wife's  in- 
terest in  mutual  benefit  certificate. 

N.  J Sup.  Council,  A.  L.  of  H.,  vs.  Smith,  17  At, 

770;  45  N.  J.  Eq.,  466. 

42 

Absolute  divorce  terminates  interest  of  wife  in  mutual 
benefit  certificate. 

Mass Tyler  vs.  Odd  Fellows'  Asn.,  145  Mass.,  134; 

13  N.  E.,  360. 

Mo Order    of    Ry.  Conductors  vs.  Koster,  55  Mo. 

App.,  185. 

"    Order  of  Ry.  Conductors  vs.  Lally,  3  Mo.  Legal 

News,  136. 
Tex Schonfield  vs.  Turner,  75  Tex.,  324. 

76 


But  see:— 
Cal Courtois  vs.  Woodmen  of  the  World,  67  Pac., 

970. 

Col Overhiser  vs.  Overhiser,  59  Pac.,  75. 

Ohio Sup.  Commandery  vs.  Everding,  20  Ohio  Cir. 

Ct,  689. 

43 

"Wife"  means  lawful  wife. 

Me Bolton  vs.  Bolton,  73  Me.,  299. 

Mo Ashford  vs.  Metropolitan  Life,  2  Mo.  App.,  766. 

"    Grand  Lodge  vs.  Eisner,  26  Mo.  App.,  108. 

N.  Y Schnook  vs.  Sons  of  Benjamin,  24  N.  Y.  Wkly. 

Digest,  348. 
But  see:— 

Ind Sup.  Lodge  vs.  Hutchinson,  33  N.  E.,  816. 

Pa Overbeck  vs.  Overbeck,  25  At.,  646. 

44 

"Widow"  means  wife  of  insured  who  survives  him. 

D.  C Masonic    Mut.    Ben.    Assn.    vs.    McAuley,    2 

Mackey.  70. 

La Phelan  vs.  Phelan,  21  Ins.  L.  J.,  93. 

Me Small  vs.  Jose,  86  Me.,   120. 

45 

Policy  payable  to  "wife  and  children"    Beneficiaries 
take  per  capita. 

Cal Heydenfeld  vs.  Jacobs,  40  Pac.,  492. 

Ind Milburn  vs.  Milburn,  83  Ind.,  55. 

Kan Felix  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  31  Kan.,  81 ;  I  Pac.,  281. 

La..         ..Tutorship  of  Crane,  17  So.,  431;  47  La.  Ann., 
896. 

Me Cragin  vs.  Cragin,  66  Me.,  512. 

Mass Gould  vs.  Emerson,  99  Mass.,  154. 

'    Jackman  vs.  Nelson,  147  Mass.,  300;  17  N.  E., 

Tex N.  Y.  Life  vs.  Ireland,  14  S.  W.,  617. 

Wis Taylor  vs.  Hill,  56  N.  W.,  738. 

77 


46 

Policy  payable  to  "wife  and  children"    Beneficiaries, 
take  according  to  Statute  of  Distributions. 
Ky Johnson  vs.  Johnson.  57  S.  W.,  460. 

" Kelly  vs.  Ball,  19  S.  W.,  581. 

" McLin  vs.  Calvert,  78  Ky.,  472. 

Tenn Goslin  vs.  Caldwell,  69  Tenn.,  474. 

47 

The  word  "Children"  does  not  include  Grandchildren. 

Ala Russell  vs.  Russell,  64  Ala.,  500. 

Ala Continental  Ins.  Co.  vs.  Webb,  54  Ala.,  500. 

Mass Thompson  vs.  Ludington,  104  Mass.,  193. 

N.  J Feit's  Exr.  vs.  Vanatta,  21  N.  J.  Eq.,  84. 

N.  Y Lane  vs.  De  Mets,  13  N.  Y.  Supp.,  347. 

"    Lerch  vs.  Freutel,  73  N.  Y.  Supp.,  1078. 

"    U.  S.  Trust  Co.  vs.  Mut.  Ins.  Co.,  115  N.  Y., 

152;  21  N.  E.,  1025. 

"    Walsh  vs.  Mut.  Life,  133  N.  Y,  408;  31  N.  E., 

228. 

Ohio Frank  vs.  Bauman,  54  Ohio  St.,  621. 

Pa Hallowell  vs.  Phipps,  2  Wharton,  376. 

" In  re  Stemmetz's  Estate,  45  At.,  663. 

R.  I Winsor  vs.  Odd  Fellows,  13  R.  I.t  149. 


3,  13  tt. 
N.  W., 


Wis Elgar  vs.  Equitable,  88  N.  W.,  927. 

48 

The  word  "Children"  includes  Grandchildren. 

Conn Continental  Ins.  Co.  vs.  Palmer,  42  Conn.,  60. 

la Estate  of  Conrad,  56  N.  W.,  535  ;  89  la.,  535. 

Ky Duvall  vs.  Goodson,  79  Ky.,  224. 

" Nuchols  vs.  Ky.  Mut.,  16  Ky.  L.  ,R.,  270. 

" Sup.  Council  vs.  Densford,  56  S.  W.,  172. 

Mich Voss  vs  Conn.  Mut,  77  N.  W.,  697. 

N.  C Suggs  vs.  Hooker,  102  N.  C,  115;  8  S.  E.,  919. 

Tenn , Glenn  vs.  Burns,  45  S.  W.,  785. 

49 

Adopted  child  will  not  take  under  a  policy  payable  to 
"Children"  unless  such  is  the  intent. 
Me Martin  vs.  Aetna  Life,  73  Me.,  25. 

78 


50 

"Children"  includes  afterborn  Children. 

Ala Roquemore  vs.  Dent,  33  So.,  178. 

Mich Union  Mut.  vs.  Montgomery,  70  Mich.,  587 ;  38 

N.  W.,  588. 

Tex Thomas  vs.  Leake,  67  Tex.,  469;  3  S.  W.,  703. 

4  Kent  Comm.,  412. 
2  Redf.  on  Wills,  10. 
2  Washb.  Real  Property,  654. 
But  see  :— 

R.  I Conn.  Mut  vs.  Baldwin,  15  R.  I.,  106;  23  At, 

105. 

51 

"Where  Children  are  designated  by  name,  afterborn 
child  takes  no  share  of  proceeds. 

la Spry  vs.  Williams,  82  la.,  61 ;  47  N.  W.,  890. 

Minn Hanson  vs.  Minn.  Assn.,  60  N.  W.,  1091. 

N.  C Scull  vs.  Aetna  Life,  43  S.  K,  504. 

52 

"Children"  includes  Children  of  insured  by  a  former  or 
subsequent  wife. 

Mass Jackman  vs.  Nelson,  17  N.  K,  529. 

Minn Ricker  vs.  Charter  Oak,  27  Minn.,  93. 

Mo McDermott  vs.  Centennial  Assn.,  24  Mo.  App., 

73- 

" State  Life  vs.  Redman,  91  Mo.  App.,  49. 

Tex Evans  vs.  Opperman,  76  Tex.,  273 ;  13  S.  W., 

312. 

53 

"Children"  does  not  include  Children  of  wife  by  a 
former  husband. 
la Koehler  vs.  Centennial  Assn.,  66  la.,  325. 

54 

"Their  Children"  means  children  of  insured  by  his  then 

ivife. 

N.  H Aetna  Life  vs.  Clough,  44  Atl.,  520. 

79 


N    Y Lockwood  vs.  Bishop,  51  How.  Pr.,  221 ;  18  Ins. 

L.  J.,  491. 
Tex Evans  vs.  Opperman,  76  Tex.  273;  13  S.  W., 

312 

But  see:— 
Va Stigler  vs.  Stigler,  77  Va.,  163. 

55 

Interest  of  Beneficiary  becomes  vested  upon  the  death 
of  the  insured. 

Col Chartrand  vs.  Brace,  16  Col.,  19;  26  Pac.  152. 

Mich Union  Assn.  vs.  Montgomery,  70  Mich.,  587; 

38  N.  W.,  588. 

Minn Kottman  vs.  Minn.  Soc.,  68  N.  W.,  732. 

N.  Y Aiken  vs.  Assn.,  13  N.  Y.  Supp.,  579. 

Ore I.  O.  F.  vs.  Keliher,  59  Pac.,  759. 

Tex Thomas  vs.  Leake,  67  Tex.,  469;  3  S.  W.,  703. 

56 

In  Regular  Life  Insurance  the  Beneficiary  has  a  vested 
interest  unless  policy  provides  otherwise. 

Ala Waldrun  vs.  Waldrun,  76  Ala.,  285. 

Ark Franklin  Life  vs.  Galligan,  73  S.  W.,  102. 

Cal Yore  vs.  Booth,  42  Pac.,  808. 

Conn Chapin  vs.  Fellows,  36  Conn.,  132. 

"    Lemon  vs.  Phoenix  Mut,  38  Conn.,  294. 

D.  C Wash.  Bk.  vs.  Hume,  128  U.  S.,  195. 

Ill Glanz  vs.  Gloeckler,  104  111.,  573. 

Ind Holland  vs.  Taylor,  ill  Ind.,  125. 

la Willmaster  vs.  Cont.  Life.,  66  la.,  417. 

Ky Mut.  Ben.  vs.  Dunn,  51  S.  W.,  20. 

La Lambert  vs.  Penn.  Mut.,  24  So.  16 ;  50  La.  Ann., 

1027. 

" Pilcher  vs.  N.  Y.  Life,  33  La.  Ann.,  332. 

Me Duffy  vs.  Met.  Life,  47  Atl.,  905. 

"  Laughlin  vs.  Norcross,  53  At.,  834. 

" Nat.  Life  vs.  Halsey,  78  Me.,  268. 

" Small  vs.  Jose,  86  Me.,  120 ;  29  At,  976. 

Mass Boyden  vs.  Mass.  Co.,  153  Mass.,  544. 

"    Pingree  vs.  Nat.  Life,  144  Mass.,  374;  n  N.  E., 

502. 

80 


Mich Lockwood  vs.  Mich.  Ins.  Co.,  66  N.  W.,  229; 

108  Mich,  334. 

Minn Allis  vs.  Ware,  28  Minn.,  166. 

"    Ricker   vs.    Charter    Oak,   6   N.   W.,    771;    27 

Minn.,  193. 

Miss Jackson  Bk.  vs.  Williams,  26  So.  965;  77  Miss., 

398. 

N.  H City  Bk.  vs.  Whittle,  63  N.  H.,  587. 

N.  J Landrum  vs.  Knowles,  22  N.  J.  Eq.,  594. 

"    L.  E.  Assn.  vs.  Winterstein,  44  Atl.,  199. 

N.  Y Foley  vs.  Mut.  Life,  138  N.  Y.,  333. 

"    Garner  vs.  German  Life,   1 10  N.  Y.,  266. 

"    Ferdon  vs.  Canfield,  104  N.  Y.  143. 

"    Whitehead  vs.  N.  Y.  Life,  102  N.  Y.,  143. 

N.  C Hooker  vs.  Sugg.,  102  N.  C,  115. 

Ohio Man.  Life  vs.  Smith,  44  Ohio  St.,  156. 

Pa Brown's  Appeal,  125  Pa.  St.,  303. 

" Mattlack  vs.  Mut.  Life,  36  At,  1082;  180  Pa. 

St.,  360. 

R.  I Conn.  Mut.  vs.  Baldwin,  15  R.  I.,  106;  23  At, 

105. 

S.  C McAuley  vs.  Nat.  Bk.,  27  S.  C,  215. 

Tex Irwin  vs.  Trav.  Ins.  Co.,  39  S.  W.,  1097. 


57 

Where  the  Beneficiary  may  be  changed  without  his 
consent,  he  has  no  vested  interest. 

Cal Hoeft  vs.  Sup.  Lodge,  45  Pac.,  185. 

Col Hill  vs.  Groesbeck,  67  Pac.,  167. 

Ga Bilbro  vs.  Jones,  29  S.  E.,  118. 

Ill Johnson  vs.  Van  Epps,  no  111.,  551. 

Ind Holland  vs.  Taylor,  in  Ind.,  121. 

"    Masonic  Mut.  vs.  Burkhart,  no  Ind.,  189. 

"    Presbt  Fund  vs.  Allen,  106  Ind.,  593. 

la Schmidt  vs.  la.  Assn.,  82  la.,  304;  47  N.  W., 

1032. 

Kan Titswprth  vs.  Titsworth,  20  Pac.,  213. 

Ky Schillinger  vs.  Boes,  85  Ky.,  357. 

" Duvall  vs.  Goodsen,  79  Ky.,  224. 

Md Md.  Soc.  vs.  Clendenin,  44  Md.,  428. 

81 


Mass Marsh  vs.  Sup.  Council,  21  N.  E.,  1070. 

Mich Met  Life  vs.  O'Brien,  52  N.  W.,  1012;  92  Mich., 

584- 

1    Union  Assn.  vs.  Montgomery,  38  N.  W.,  588; 

70  Mich.,  587. 

Minn Finch  vs.  Grand  Grove,  60  Minn.,  308 ;  62  N. 

W.,  384. 

Schoenau  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  88  N.  W.,  999. 

Mo Masonic  Mut.  vs.  Bunch,  19  6.  W.,  25 ;  109  Mo., 

560. 

'    Wells  vs.  Covenant  Mut.,  29  S.  W.,  607. 

N.   H K.  O.  vs.  Watson,  64  N.  H.,  517. 

N.  J Tepper  vs.  Sup.  Council,  45  At,  in. 

N.  Y Sabin  vs.  Phinney,  31  N.  E.,  1087;  134  N.  Y., 

423. 

Pa Fisk  vs.  Equit.  Aid  Union,  11  At,  84. 

"   Hamilton  vs.  Royal  Arcan.,  189  Pa.  St.,  273 ;  42 

At,  186. 

Tex Byrne  vs.  Casey,  70  Tex.,  247;  8  S.  W.,  38. 

Splawn  vs.  Chew,  60  Tex.,  532. 

Wash Thomas  vs.   Grand  Lodge,  41    Pac.,  882;    12 

Wash.,  500. 

"    Cade  vs.  Woodmen  of  World,  67  Pac.,  603. 

Fed Hopkins  vs.  N.  W.  Met,  99  Fed.,  199. 

"   Gentry  vs.  K.  of  H.,  23  Fed.,  718. 

"    Lamont  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  31  Fed.,  177. 


58 

Beneficiary  may  acquire  a  vested  interest  by  a  contract 
with  the  insured. 

Cal Grimbley  vs.  Harold,  57  Pac.,  558. 

N.  Y Maynard  vs.  Vandewerker,  24  N.  Y.  Supp.,  932. 

See  also: — 

"    Smith  vs.  Nat  Ben.  Soc.,  123  N.  Y.,  85;  25 

N.  K,  197. 
Contra  :— 

Mo Masonic  Assn.  vs.   Bunch,   109  Mo.,   560;   19 

S.  W.,  25. 

See  also  statutes  of  Idaho,  Indiana,  Iowa 
and  Missouri. 

82 


59 

Possession  of  policy  or  certificate  by  Beneficiary  does 
not,  of  itself,  give  him  a  vested  interest. 

Ga Nally  vs.  Nally,  74  Ga.,  669. 

Ill Glanz  vs.  Gloeckler,  104  III,  573. 

la Hirschl  vs.  Clark,  81  la.,  200. 

Pa Beatty's  Appeal,  15  At,  861. 

" Fisk  vs.  Equit.  Union,  1 1  At.,  84. 

Tex .Byrne  vs.  Casey,  70  Tex.,  247 ;  8  S.  W.,  38. 

Va Leftwich  vs.  Wells,  43  S.  E.,  364. 

60 

Vested  interests  of  minor  children  cannot  be  defeated 
even  though  they  consent. 

N.  Y Foley  vs.  Mutual  Life,  138  N.  Y.,  333. 

Pa Brown's  Appeal,  46  Legal  Int.,  361. 

Fed Brockhaus  vs.  Kenna,  7  Fed.,  609. 

61 

Policy  payable  to  "Wife  and,  in  the  event  of  her  prior 
death,  to  the  Children"  of  insured — interests  of  both  Wife 
and  Children  are  vested  but  contingent.  (See  also  62,  84.) 

Ala Roquemore  vs.  Dent.,  33  So.,  178. 

Mass Millard  vs.  Brayton,  59  N.  E.,  436. 

N.  Y Whitehead  vs.  N.  Y.  Life,  102  N.  Y.,  143. 

Pa Entwistle  vs.  Travelers,  51  At.,  759. 

62 

Policy  payable  to  "Wife  and,  in  the  event  of  her  prior 
death,  to  the  Children,"  of  insured.  Only  such  children 
who  survive  the  mother  upon  her  death  prior  to  the  in- 
sured share  in  the  policy.  Interest  of  child  dying  after  the 
mother,  but  before  the  insured,  goes  to  such  child's  per- 
sonal representatives.  (See  61,  84.) 

Ala Cont.  Life  vs.  Webb,  54  Ala.,  688. 

Ala Roquemore  vs.  Dent,  33  So.,  178. 

Mass Millard  vs.  Brayton,  59  N.  E.,  436. 

N.  H Smith  vs.  Aetna  Life,  44  At.,  531. 

N.  Y U.  S.  Trust  Co.  vs.  Mut.  Ben.,  115  N.  Y.,  152. 

83 


N.  Y Walsh  vs.  Mut.  Life,  133  N.  Y.,  408 

Contra : 
Term Glenn  vs.  Burns,  45  S.  W.,  785. 

63 

Vested  interests  are  not  defeated  by  a  wrongful  sur- 
render of  the  policy. 

Conn Chapin  vs.  Fellows,  36  Conn.,  132. 

1     Lemon  vs.  Phoenix  Mut.,  38  Conn.,  298. 

Minn Ricker  vs.  Charter  Oak,  27  Minn.,  193. 

N.  Y Stillwell  vs.  Mut.  Life,  72  N.  Y.,  385. 

"    Whitehead  vs.  N.  Y.  Life,  102  N.  Y.,  143. 

Fed Singer  vs.  Charter  Oak,  22  Fed.,  774. 

'    Timayenis  vs.  Union  Mut.,  21  Fed.  223. 

1    Union  Mut.  vs.  Stevens,  19  Fed.,  671. 

64 

Member  in  Mutual  Benefit  Society  is  generally  given 
the  right  to  change  his  Beneficiary. 

Mo Masonic  Assn.  vs.   Bunch,   109  Mo.,  560;   19 

S.  W.,  25. 

See  also  cases  in  68. 

65 

States  having  statutes  giving  members  of  mutual  bene- 
fit societies  the  right  to  change  the  beneficiary : 

Idaho,  Indiana,  Iowa,  Maryland,  Massachusetts,  Mich- 
igan, Maine,  Minnesota,  Missouri,  Montana,  Nebraska, 
New  Hampshire,  New  York  and  South  Dakota. 

66 

Where  insured  has  only   the  right  to  apportion   the 
benefit  fund,  he  cannot  change  the  Beneficiary. 
Ky Ry.  Grangers  vs.  Howe,  9  Ky.  Law  Rep.,  198. 

67 

Where  it  is  prohibited  by  express  provision  in  the  con- 
tract, the  Beneficiary  of  a  mutual  benefit  certificate  cannot 
be  changed. 

Ind Mason  vs.  Mason,  63  N.  E.,  578. 

"    Presby.  Fund  vs.  Allen,  106  Ind.,  595. 

84 


Ind Sup.  Lodge  vs.  Knight,  117  Ind.,  489. 

Kan Olmstead  vs.  Masonic  Mut.,  37  Kan.,  93. 

Ky Van  Bibber  vs.  Van  Bibber,  82  Ky.,  347. 

Tex Thomas  vs.  Leake,  67  Tex.,  472. 

68 

Membership  in  a  Mutual  Benefit  Society  gives  a  mem- 
ber the  right  to  change  his  Beneficiary  even  though  the 
contract  is  silent  as  to  such  right. 

Ill Benton  vs.  Brotherhood,  146  111.,  570. 

" Delany  vs.  Delany,  51  N.  E.,  961. 

" Johnson  vs.  Van  Epps,  no  111.,  551-8. 

Ind Holland  vs.  Taylor,  in  Ind.,  121;   12  N.  E., 

116. 
"     Masonic  Mut.  vs.  Burkhart,  no  Ind.,  189;  n 

N.  E.,  449;  10  N.  E.,  79. 
"     .Presby.  Fund  vs.  Allen,  106  Ind.,  583;  7  N.  E., 

317. 
la Carpenter  vs.  Knapp,  101  la.,  712;  70  N.  W., 

764. 

" Schmidt  vs.  Assn.,  82  la.,  304 ;  47  N.  W.,  1032. 

" Wendt  vs.  Legion  of  Honor,  72  la.,  682 ;  34 

N.  W.,  470. 

Ky Duvall  vs.  Goodson,  79  Ky.,  224. 

Md Md.  Soc.  vs.  Clendenin,  44  Md.,  429. 

Mich Catholic   Assn.    vs.    Priest,   46   Mich.,   429;   9 

N.  W.,  481. 
"      Union  Mut.  vs.  Montgomery,  70  Mich.,  587;  38 

N.  W.,  588. 
Minn Richmond    vs.    Johnson,    28    Minn.,    447;    IO 

N.  W.,  596. 

Mo Aid  Soc.  vs.  Lewis,  9  Mo.  App.,  412. 

"   Masonic  Assn.   vs.   Bunch,    109  Mo.,   560:    19 

S.  W.,  25. 

N.  Y Hellenberg  vs.  Ind.  Order,  94  N.  Y.,  580. 

"     Sabin  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  134  N.  Y.,  432;  31  N. 

E.,  1087. 

Tex Byrne  vs.  Casey,  70  Tex.,  247;  8  S.  W.,  38. 

'    Splawn  vs.  Chew,  60  Tex.,  532.  , 

Wash Thomas  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  41  Pac.,  882. 

Wis Ballou  vs.  Gile,  50  Wis.,  614;  7  N.  W..  561. 

'    Detrick  vs.  Madison  Relief,  45  Wis.,  84. 

85 


Fed Gentry  vs.  Sup.  Lodge,  23  Fed.,  719. 

'    Lament  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  31  Fed.,  177. 

Eastman  vs.  Prov.  Mut,  20  Cent.  L.  J.,  393. 
But  see : 

Ark Johnson  vs.  Hall,  55  Ark.,  210;  17  S.  W.,  874. 

N.  J Assn.  vs.  Winterstein,  44  At.,  199.  , 

69 

Beneficiary  of  Regular  Life  Insurance  Policy  may  be 
changed  if  permitted  by  the  terms  of  the  contract.  (See 
80.) 

Ky Hopkins  vs.  Hopkins,  92  Ky.,  324;  17  S.  W., 

864. 
N.  Y Hutchins  vs.  Miner,  46  N.  Y.,  456. 

70 

The  method  of  changing  the  Beneficiary,  as  set  forth 
in  the  Contract,  Charter,  Constitution  or  By-Laws,  must 
be  followed  in  order  to  make  a  valid  change.  (See  71,  72, 
74,  75,  76,  78,  79-) 

C'al Conway  vs.  Sup.  Council,  63  Pac.,  727. 

Colo Rolands  vs.  McHatten,  16  Colo.,  203 ;  27  Pac., 

254- 

lil Highland  vs.   Highland,   109  111.,  366;   13  111. 

App.,  510. 

Ind Holland  vs.  Taylor,  in  Ind.,  127. 

"    Presby.  Fund  vs.  Allen,  160  Ind.,  597. 

la Modern  Woodman  vs.  Little,  86  N.  W.,  216. 

"  Schuman  vs.  A.  O.  U.  W.,  82  N.  W.,  331. 

" Stephenson  vs.  Stephenson,  21  N.  W.,  19;  64 

la.,  534- 

" Wendt  vs.  la.  L.  of  H.,  72  la.,  682 ;  34  N.  W., 

470. 

Kan Olmstead  vs.  Masonic  Mut,  37  Kan.,  93;   14 

Pac.,  449. 

Ky Basye  vs.  Adams,  81  Ky.,  363. 

" Ky.  Masonic  Mut.  vs.  Miller,  3  Bush,  489. 

" Leaf  vs.  Leaf,  92  Ky.,  166;  17  S.  W.,  354- 

" Manning  vs.  Sup.  Lodge,  86  Ky.,  136;  5  S.  W., 

385. 

86 


Mass Daniels  vs.  Pratt,  143  Mass.,  216;  10  N.  E.,  166. 

"     McCarthy  vs.  N.  E.  Order,  153  Mass.,  314;  26 

N.   E.,   866. 

Mich Sup.  L.  K.  of  H.  vs.  Nairn,  60  Mich.,  44;  20 

N.  W.,  826. 

Mo Coleman  vs.  K.  of  H.,  18  Mo.  App.,  189. 

N.  H Eastman  vs.  Prov.  Assn.,  62  N.  H.,  552. 

"    Mellows  vs.  Mellows,  61  N.  H.,  137. 

N.  J Sup.  Council  A.  L.  H.  vs.  Smith,  45  N.  J.,  466; 

17  At.,  770. 

N.  Y Gladding  vs.  Gladding,  56  Hun.,  639. 

Greene  vs.  Greene,  23  Hun.,  478. 

"     Ireland  vs.  Ireland,  42  Hun.,  212. 

N.  C Elliott  vs.  Whedke,  94  N.  C,  115. 

N.  C Smith  vs.  Sup.  Council,  37  S.  E.,  159. 

Ore Stringham  vs.  Dillon,  69  Pac.,  1020. 

Pa Jinks  vs.  Banner  Lodge,  139  Pa.  St.,  414. 

Pa Nat.  Mut.  Assn.  vs.  Leopold,  101  Pa.  St.,  in. 

" Masonic  Assn.  vs.  Jones,  154  Pa.  St.,  107;  26 

At.,  255. 

" Vollman's  Appeal,  92  Pa.  St.,  50. 

Wis Berg  vs.  Damkoehler,  88  N.  W.,  606. 

Fed Gentry  vs.  K.  of  H.,  23  Fed.,  718. 

'    Harmon  vs.  Lewis,  24  Fed.,  97 ;  530. 

"  Hotel  Men's  Mut.  Ben.  vs.  Brown,  33  Fed.,  n. 

71 

//  the  Beneficiary  may  be  changed,  but  no  particular 
method  is  prescribed  for  making  the  change,  any  method 
showing  an  intention  to  change  is  sufficient.  (See  79.) 

Ja Hirschl  vs.  Clark,  81  la.,  200;  47  N.  W.,  78. 

Mass Atlantic  Mut.  vs.  Gannon,  60  N.  E.,  933. 

Mo Masonic  Mut.  Ben.  vs.  Bunch,  109  Mo.,  560; 

19  S.  W.,  25. 

72 

Where  a  mutual  benefit  certificate  requires  compliance 
ivith  the  "laws  of  the  Society"  the  laws  referred  to  are 
those  in  existence  at  the  time  the  Change  of  Beneficiary  is 
attempted. 

111. .         .  .Sup.  Council  vs.  Franke,  137  111.,  118;  27  N.  E., 
86. 

87 


R.  I Sup.  Council  Cath.  K.  vs.  Morrison,  16  R.  L, 

468;  17  At,  57- 
Tenn Cath.  Knights  of  Amer.  vs.  Kuhn,  91  Tenn., 

214;  i8S.  W.,  385. 

73 

The  insurer  may  refuse  to  give  his  Consent  to  a  pro- 
posed Change  of  Beneficiary,  but  such  refusal  must  be 
upon  reasonable  grounds. 

Mass Daniels  vs.  Pratt,  143  Mass.,  216. 

N.  J Sup.  Council  vs.  Smith,  45  N.  J.  Eq.,  17  At, 

770. 

N.  Y Hellenberg  vs.  I.  O.  O.  B,  94  N.  Y.,  583. 

'    Marcus  vs.  St.  Louis  Mut,  68  N.  Y.,  625. 

c    Murphy  vs.  Met  Assn.,  55  N.  Y.  Supp.,  620. 

Pa Jinks  vs.  Banner  Lodge,  21  At,  4;  139  Pa.  St., 

414. 

*'  Nat.  Mut.  vs.  Lupold,  101  Pa.  St.,  in. 

Fed Hotel   Men  vs.    Brown,   33   Fed.,    n. 

74 

An  insurer  may  Waive  a  Strict  Compliance  with  the 
rules  and  method  of  Changing  the  Beneficiary,  and,  if  a 
change  is  so  made,  it  is  valid  and  the  original  beneficiary 
cannot  complain. 
Cal Bowman  vs.  Moore,  87  Cal.,  306;  25  Pac.,  409. 

"  Adams   vs.    Grand   Lodge,    125    Cal,   321;    38 

Pac.,  914. 

Ill Martin  vs.  Stnbbings,  126  111.,  387. 

Ind Holland  vs.  Taylor,  in  Ind.,  121. 

"    Presby.    Fund  vs.   Allen,    106   Ind.,   593. 

la Schmidt  vs.  la.  Knights,  47  N.  W.,  1032. 

"  Simcoke  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  51  N.  W.,  8 ;  84  la., 

_o~ 

<; Wendt  vs.  la.  L.  of  H.,  72  la.,  682. 

Kan Titsworth  vs.  Titsworth,  40  Kan.  571 ;  20  Pac., 

213- 

Ky Duvall  vs.  Goodson,  79  Ky.,  224. 

" Manning  vs.  A.  O.  U.  W.,  5  S.  W.,  385 ;  86  Ky., 

136. 

Mass Anthony  vs.  Mass.  Assn.,  158  Mass.,  322;  33 

N.  E.,  577- 

88 


Mass Marsh  vs.    Sup.   Council,    144   Mass.,   512;  21 

N.  E.,  1070. 

"     .Sup.  Council  vs.  Perry,  140  Mass.,  580. 

Mich Allgemeiner  Bund  vs.  Adamson,  92  N.  W.,  786. 

Mich Supreme  Court  vs.  Davis,  88  N.  W.,  874. 

Mo Stewart  vs.  Sup.  Council,  36  Mo.  App.,  319. 

N.  H Brown  vs.  Mansur,  64  N.  H.,  39;  5  At,  768. 

"    .  .    ..Barton  vs.  Assn.,  63  N.  H.,  535. 

«    K.  of  H.  vs.  Watson,  64  N.  H.,  517. 

N.  Y Gladding  vs.  Gladding,  8  N.  Y.  Supp.,  880. 

Pa Nat.  Soc.  vs.  Lupold,  101  Pa.  St.,  HI. 

R.  I John  Hancock  vs  White,  40  At.,  5. 

Tenn Schardt  vs.  Schardt,  45  S.  W.,  340. 

Tex Byrne  vs.  Casey,  70  Tex.,  247- 

"    Splawn  vs.  Chew,  60  Tex.,  532. 

Wis McGowan  vs.  I.  O.  R,  80  N.  W.,  603. 

Fed Sup.  Conclave  vs.  Cappella,  41  Fed.,  I. 

75 

Where  the  insured  has  done  all  in  his  power  to  make  a 
Change  of  Beneficiary,  but  dies  before  the  Change  is 
actually  made,  or  where  it  is  impossible  for  the  insured  to 
perform  all  the  requirements,  a  Court  of  Equity  will  con- 
sider the  Change  as  valid. 
Cal Jory  vs.  Sup.  Council,  105  Cal.,  20;  38  Pac., 

524- 

Ga Nally  vs.  Nally,  74  Ga.,  669. 

Ind Isrigg  vs.  Schooley,  125  Ind.,  94;  25  N.  E.,  151. 

la Hirschl  vs.  Clark,  81  la.,  200. 

" Schmidt  vs.  Iowa  Assn.,  82  la.,  304. 

Kan Heydorf  vs.   Conrack,   7   Kan.   App.,  202;   52 

Pac.,  700. 

Pa Jinks  vs.  Banner  Lodge,  139  Pa.  St.,  414. 

Mass Marsh  vs.  A.  L.  O.  H.,  149  Mass.,  512. 

Mich A.  O.  U.  W.  vs.  Kohler,  63  N.  W,  897. 

"    Grand    Lodge    vs.    Child,    70  Mich.,   163;  38 

N.  W.,  i. 
"    .       ..Grand  Lodge  vs.  Noll,  90  Mich.,  37;  51  N.  W., 

268. 

Miss Hall  vs.  Allen,  22  So.,  4. 

Mo Nat.  Soc.  vs.  Kirgin,  28  Mo.  App.,  80. 

N.  H Sanborn  vs.  Black,  35  At.,  942 


N.  Y Fink  vs.  Society,  68  N.  Y.,  Supp.,  80. 

"     Lahey  vs.  Lahey,  174  N.  Y.,  146;  66  N.  E.,  670. 

R.  I John  Hancock  vs.  White,  40  At,  5. 

Fed Sup.  Council  vs.  Cappella,  41  Fed.,  i. 

76 

Where  the  insured  wilfully  or  carelessly  failed  to  take 
all  of  the  steps  necessary  to  Change  the  Beneficiary,  the 
attempt  to  Change  was  held  ineffectual. 

N.  Y Eagan  vs.  Eagan,  68  N.  Y.  Supp.,  777. 

"     Ireland  vs.  Ireland,  42  Hun,  212. 

Ore Stringham  vs.  Dillon,  69  Pac.,  1020. 

Pa Hamilton  vs.  Royal  Arcan.,  42  At,  126. 

See  also  cases  in  70. 

77 

Fraud,  or  undue  influence  inducing  a  Change  of  Bene- 
ficiary, is  immaterial,  so  far  as  the  Original  Beneficiary  is 
concerned. 

Cal Hoeft  vs.  Sup.  Lodge,  45  Pac.,  185  ;  113  Cal.,  91. 

Ill Pingree  vs.  Jones,  80  111.,  181. 

See  also : 

la Schuman  vs.  Sup.  Lodge,  81  N.  W.,  717. 

N.  Y Smith  vs.  Harmon,  59  N.  Y.  Supp.,  1044 

Tenn Goodrich  vs.  Bohan,  52  S.  E.,  1105. 

78 

The  Beneficiary  cannot  be  Changed  by  the  insured' s 
Will  unless  the  contract  prescribes  no  method  of  making 
the  change  or  expressly  permits  a  change  by  Will.  (See 
79-) 

Cal Silva  vs.  Sup.  Council,  42  Pac.,  32. 

Ind Holland  vs.  Taylor,  in  Ind.,  121;   12  N.  E., 

116. 
la Hiner  vs.  la.  L.  of  H.,  78  la.,  245;  43  N.  W., 

185. 

" Stephenson  vs.  Stephenson,  64  la.,  534. 

Ky Ins.  Co.  vs.  Miller,  13  Bush.,  489. 

Mass Daniels  vs.  Pratt,  143  Mass.,  216;  10  N.  E.,  166. 

N.  Y Fink  vs.  Fink,  64  N.  E.,  506. 

90 


Ohio Charch  vs.  Charch,  49  N.  E.,  408. 

Pa Vollman's  Appeal,  92  Pa.  St.,  50. 

79 

Where  no  method  of  Changing  the  Beneficiary  is  pre- 
scribed, or  where  no  beneficiary  has  ever  been  named,  the 
insured  may  direct  in  his  Will  to  whom  the  proceeds  shall 
be  paid. 

Cal Order  of  M.   C  vs.   Griest,  76  CaL,  494;   18 

Pac.,  652. 
Mo Masonic   Mut.   vs.    Bunch,    109   Mo.     560:    10 

S.  W.,  25. 

80 

Where  a  man  takes  out  insurance  on  his  own  life,  and 
pays  the  premiums  himself,  he  may  dispose  of  the  policy 
in  any  manner  he  sees  fit,  even  though  there  be  a  bene- 
ficiary named  in  the  contract. 

Wis Clark  vs.  Durand,  12  Wis.,  223. 

'    Kerman  vs.  Howard,  23  Wis.,  108. 

'    Foster  vs.  Gile,  50  Wis.,  603 ;  7  N.  W.,  555. 

'    In  re.  Bretung's  estate,  78  Wis.,  33 ;  46  N.  W., 

891. 

'    Strike  vs.   Wis.,   Etc.,   Co.,  95  Wis.,   583;   70 

N.  W.,  819. 

But  see:— 
Ellison  vs.  Straw,  92  N.  W.,  1094. 

8.1 

The  Beneficiary  of  a  Mutual  Benefit  Certificate  loses 
his  entire  interest  in  the  certificate  by  his  Death  prior  to 
the  insured. 
Cal In  re.  Greist,  18  Pac.,  654. 

".._ Sup.  Council  vs.  Gehrenbeck,  124  Cal.,  43;  56 

.    ;  i  Pac.,  640. 

D.  C Masonic  Mut.  vs.  McAuley,  2  Mackey,  70. 

"    Wash.  Assn.  vs.  Wood,  4  Mackey,  19. 

Ill Palmer  vs.  Welch,  132  III,  141 ;  23  N.  E.,  412. 

Kan Brew  vs.  Clement,  48  Kan.,  386. 

91 


Mass Haskins  vs.  Kendall,  158  Mass.,  224;  33  N.  E., 

495- 

;    L.  of  H.  vs.  Perry,  140  Mass.,  589 ;  5  N.  E.,  636. 

'    Boden  vs.  Assn.,  45  N.  E.,  735. 

Mich Lyon  vs.  Rolfe,  76  Mich.,  146-42  N.  W.,  1094. 

"    Wood  vs.  Lenawee  Cir.  Judge,  84  Mich.,  521. 

Minn Gutterson    vs.    Gutterson,    50  Minn.,  258 :  52 

N.  W.,  530. 

Richmond  vs.  Johnson,  28  Minn.,  447. 

Mo Expressmen's  Soc.  vs.  Lewis,  9  Mo.  App.,  415. 

N.  J Britton  vs.  Sup.  Council,  46  N.  J.  Eq.,  102. 

N.  Y Brooklyn  Masonic  Assn.  vs.  Hanson,  6  N.  Y. 

Supp.,  161. 

Cullen  vs.  Sup.  Tent.,  77  Hun,  6. 

"     Hellenberg  vs.  I.  O.  O.  R.,  94  N.  Y.,  580. 

Pa Arthars  vs.  Baird,  8  Pa.  County  Ct.,  67. 

Tenn Handwerker  vs.  Diermeyer,  36  S.  W.,  869. 

Wis Gibbon  vs.  Wis.  Oddfellows,  71  Wis.,  547;  37 

N.  W.,  817. 

'    Riley  vs.  Riley,  75  Wis.,  464;  44  N.  W.,  112. 

Contra : 

Ark Johnson  vs.  Hall,  55  Ark.,  210;  17  S.  W.,  874. 

Md Expressman's  Assn.  vs.  Hurlock,  46  At,  957. 

"  Thomas  vs.  Cochran,  43  At.,  792. 

N.J Brown  vs.  Murray,  35  At,  748. 

Pa Clark  vs.  Aid  Union,  6  Pa.  County  Rep.,  321. 

82 

Upon  the  Death  of  a  Beneficiary  of  a  Regular  Life  In- 
surance Policy  his  interest  in  such  policy  passes  to  his  per- 
sonal representatives. 

Ala Drake  vs.  Stone,  58  Ala.,  133. 

Ark Johnson  vs.  Hall,  55  Ark.,  210. 

Conn Continental  Ins.  Co.  vs.  Palmer,  42  Conn.,  60. 

Ind Harley  vs.  Heist,  86  Ind.,  196. 

"    Hutson  vs.  Merrifield,  51  Ind.,  24. 

Mass Swan  vs.  Snow,  n  Allen,  224. 

"    Bancroft  vs.  Russell,  31  N.  E.,  710. 

Minn Ricker  vs.  Charter  Oak,  27  Minn.,  193-6. 

N.  Y Hull  vs.  Hull,  62  How.  Pr.,  100. 

"    li.  S.  Trust  Co.  vs.  Ins.  Co.,  115  N.  Y.,  157; 

21  N.  E.,  1025. 

92 


S.  C McCauley  vs.  Cent.  Nat.  Bk.,  27  S.  C,  215. 

Tex Evans  vs.  Opperman,   13   S.  W.,  312. 

Wis Ellison  vs.  Straw,  92  N.  W.,  1094. 

"   Foster  vs.  Gile,  50  Wis.,  603 ;  8  N.  W.,  217. 

"   Alvord  vs.  Luckenbach,  82  N.  W.,  535- 

Contra : 

Ohio Ryan  vs.   Rothweiler,    50    Ohio    St.,    595;  35 

N.  E.,  697. 
"    Frank  vs.  Bauman,  54  Ohio  St.,  621. 

83 

Wherever  the  Common  Law  Rule  of  Survivorship  of 
the  Husband  applies,  the  entire  interest  of  a  Wife  in  a 
life  insurance  contract  will  go  to  her  husband  who  sur- 
vives her,  to  the  exclusion  of  her  next  of  kin. 

Minn Lambertson    vs.    Bogart,    46    Minn.,    409 ;    49 

N.  W.,  230. 

N    Y In  re.  Negus,  58  N.  Y.  Supp.  377  (governed  by 

N.  J.  Law). 

"    Matter  of  Warner,  32  N.  Y.  St.,  897. 

"    Olmstead  vs.  Keyes,  85  N.  Y.,  593. 

"    Waldheim  vs.  John  Hancock,  8  Misc.,  506;  13 

N.  Y.  Supp.,  577 ;  28  N.  Y.  Supp.,  766. 

N.  C Simmons  vs.  Biggs,  5  S.  K,  235. 

But  see: 

Ind Harley  vs.  Heist,  86  Ind.,  196. 

"    Hutson  vs.  Merrifield,  51  Ind.,  24. 

Me Libbey  vs.  Libbey,  37  Me.,  359. 

Mo Shield's  Trustee  vs.  Sharpe,  17  Ins.  L.  J.,  793, 

Pa Anderson's  estate,  85  Pa.  St.,  202. 

84 

Policy  payable  to  "Wife  and,  in  the  event  of  her  prior 
death,  the  Children"  of  insured — Interest  of  Children  is 
contingent  upon  the  death  of  the  mother  prior  to  that  of 
the  insured,  and  any  child  ivhich  predeceases  the  mother 
loses  his  entire  interest  in  the  policy.  (See  61,  62.) 

Mass Millard  vs.  Brayton,  59  N.  E.,  436. 

N.  H Smith  vs.  Aetna  Life,  44  At,  531. 

N.  Y Lockwood  vs.  Bishop,  18  Ins.  L.  J.,  491. 

"    U.  S.  Trust  Co.  vs.  Mut.  Ben.,  115  N.  Y.,  152. 

93 


N.Y.      .    ..Walsh  vs.  Mut.  Life,  133  N.  Y.,  408;  51  N.  E., 
228. 

Contra : — 

Mich Voss  vs.  Conn.  Mut.,  77  N.  W.,  697. 

Pa In  re.  Thorne,  33  Pittsburg  L.  J.,  233. 

Tenn Glenn  vs.  Burns,  45  S.  W.,  785 ;  100  Tenn.,  295. 

85 

Where  there  is  more  than  one  Beneficiary  of  a  mutual 
benefit  certificate,  they  hold  as  joint  tenants  with  the  right 
of  survivorship,  and  upon  the  Death  of  one  of  the  Bene- 
ficiaries his  interest  passes  to  the  survivor  or  survivors. 
(See  also  81.) 

Ill Covenant  Assn.  vs.  Hoffman,  no  111.,  603. 

Ky Bell  vs.  Kinneer,  40  S.  W.,  686. 

"" Robinson  vs.  Duvall,  79  Ky.,  83. 

Wis Farr  vs.  Trustees  Grand  Lodge  A.  O.  U.  W., 

83  Wis.,  446. 
But  see: 

Ky Sup.  Council  vs.  Densford,  56  S.  W.,  172. 

N.  C Hooper  vs.  Sugg,  8  S.  E.,  919. 

86 

Where  there  is  more  than  one  Beneficiary  of  a  Regular 
Life  Insurance  Policy,  they  hold  as  tenants  in  common, 
and,  upon  the  death  of  one,  his  interest  passes  to  his  per- 
sonal representative.  (See  also  56,  82.) 

N.  H Smith  vs.  Aetna  Life,  44  At.,  531. 

N.  C Simmons  vs.  Biggs,  5  S.  E.,  235. 

87 

Marriage  of  insured  will  not  affect  beneficiary's  right 
to  the  proceeds.  (See  88.) 

Ill Benton  vs.  Brotherhood  R.  R.  B.,  34  N.  E.,  939. 

" Highland  vs.  Highland,  109  111.,  366. 

Mass Mass.  O.  of  F.  vs.  Callahan,  146  Mass.,  391 ;  16 

N.  E.,  19. 

94 


88 

Beneficiary  loses  his  interest  upon  marriage  of  the  in- 
sured if  the  contract  or  statute  gives  wife,  or  wife  and 
children,  the  preference  to  the  proceeds. 

N.  Y Sanger  vs.  Rothschild,  123  N.  Y.,  577. 

Tenn Rose  vs.  Wortham,  95  Tenn.,  505;  32  S.  W., 

458. 

89 

Where  a  beneficiary  or  assignee  murders  the  insured, 
such  beneficiary  or  assignee,  and  any  one  claiming  under 
him,  will  lose  all  right  to  the  insurance  proceeds;  the  pro- 
ceeds zvill  be  paid  to  the  insured' s  personal  representa- 
tive if  the  insurance  be  a  regular  life  insurance  policy ;  if 
a  mutual  benefit  certificate,  the  proceeds  .will  be  paid  as  if 
no  beneficiary  had  been  designated. 

Ill Schreiner  vs.  111.  Cath.  Soc.,  35  111.  App.,  576. 

"  Holdom  vs.  Grand  Lodge,  43  N.  E.,  772. 

la Schmidt  vs.  Northern  Life,  83  N.  W.,  800. 

Va N.  Y.  Life  vs.  Davis,  32  S.  E.,  475. 

U.  S N.  Y.  Mut  vs.  Armstrong,  117  U.  S.,  591. 

Canada Trudeau  vs.  Standard  Life,  16  Rap.  Jud.,  Que. 

C.  S.,  539. 

Eng Cleaver  vs.  Mut.  F.  L.  Assn.,  8  Times  L.  R., 

139- 

"   Prince  of  Wales  Co.  vs.  Palmer,  25  Beav.,  605. 

See  Par.  7740  (83)  ;  Michigan  Insur- 
ance Law. 

90 

The  Assignment  of  a  Part  of  a  chose  in  action  is  up- 
held in  Equity,  if  there  be  Consideration. 

Ga Daniels  vs.  Meinhard,  53  Ga.,  359. 

Ill Pomeroy  vs.  Manhattan  Life,  40  111.,  398. 

Ind Lapping  vs.  Duffy,  47  Ind.,  51. 

Me Exchange  Bank  vs.  McLopn,  73  Me.,  498. 

Minn Canty  vs.  Latterner,  31  Minn.,  239. 

Miss Whitney  vs.  Cowan,  55  Miss.,  626. 

N.  J Public  Schools  vs.  Heath,  15  N.  J.  Eq.,  22. 

N.  Y Risley  vs.  Phoenix  Bk,  83  N.  Y.,  318. 

Ohio Stanberry  vs.  Smythe,  13  Ohio  St.  _(N.  S.),  495. 

95 


Penn Caldwell  vs.  Hartupee,  70  Pa.  St.,  74,  79. 

Vt Clafflin  vs.  Kimball,  52  Vt,  7. 

91 

A    A  Life  Insurance  Contract  is  an  Assignable  chose  in 
action.     (See  103,  104.) 

Conn Fitzgerald  vs.  Hartford  Ins.  Co.,  56  Conn.,  116. 

Ill Martin  vs.  Stubbings,  126  111.,  387. 

Ind Bushnell  vs.  Bushnell,  92  Ind.,  503. 

"    Harley  vs.  Heist,  86  Ind.,  196. 

"    Hutson  vs.  Merrifield,  51  Ind.,  24. 

La Stuart  vs.   Sutcliff,  46  La.  Ann.,  240. 

Md Hewlett  vs.  Home,  Etc.,  74  Md.,  350. 

"    Hurst  vs.  Mutual  Reserve,  26  At.,  956. 

"    N.  Y.  Ins.  Co.  vs.  Flack,  3  Md.,  341. 

Mass Mut.  Ins.  Co.  vs.  Allen,  138  Mass.,  24. 

"     Palmer  vs.  Merrill,  6  Cush.,  282. 

"     Pingrey  vs.  Nat'l  Life  Ins.  Co.,  144  Mass.,  374. 

N.  J Folk  vs.  Janes,  49  N.  J.  Eq.,  484. 

N    Y Cannon  vs.  N.  W.  Mut.,  29  Hun.,  470. 

"    Olmstead  vs.  Keyes,  85  N.  Y.,  593. 

"     Steinback  vs.  Diepenbrock,  158  i\.  Y.,  24. 

Ohio Eckel  vs.  Renner,  41  Ohio  St.,  232. 

R.    I Clark  vs.  Allen,  u  R.  I.,  439. 

Va Roller  vs.  Beam,  86  Va.,  512. 

Wis Bursinger  vs.  Bank,  67  Wis.,  75. 

U.  S N.  Y.  Co.  vs.  Armstrong,  117  U.  S.,  591. 

'    Spring  vs.  Ins.  Co.,  21  U.  S.,  268. 

92 

^     Mutual   Benefit   Certificates   cannot  generally   be   as- 
signed to  a  person  who  could  not  be  the  beneficiary. 

Ky Basye  vs.  Adams,  81  Ky.,  368. 

Mass A.  L.  of  H.  vs.  Perry,  140  Mass.,  580. 

Mich K.  of  H.  vs.  Nairn,  60  Mich.,  44. 

Ohio Nat.  Mut.  Aid  vs.  Gonser,  43  Ohio  St,  I. 

93 

An  Assignment  is  governed  by  the  Law  of  the  Place 
where  it  is  made. 
Conn Conn.  Mut.  vs.  Westervelt,  52  Conn.,  586. 


Ill Pomeroy  vs.  Manhattan  Life,  40  111.,  398. 

Ind Criswell   vs.   Whitney,    13    Ind.    App.,   67;   41 

N.  E.,  78. 
"    Union  Cen.  vs.  Woods,  n  Ind.  App.,  335;  37 

N.  E.,  180. 

Mass Mut.  Life  vs.  Allen,  138  Mass.,  24. 

Mich Mut.  Ben.  vs.  Bank,  68  Mich.,  116. 

N.  Y Barry  vs.  Equitable,  59  N.  Y.,  587. 

"    Miller  vs.  Campbell,  140  N.  Y.,  457;  35  N.  E., 

651. 
Tenn Pratt  vs.  Globe  Mut.  Life,  17  S.  W.,  352. 

94 

**    The  Assignee  need  have  no  Insurable  Interest,  pro- 
vided the  transaction  is  not  a  mere  cover  for  a  wager. 
Cal California  Code,  Sec.  2764. 

"    Curtiss  vs.  Aetna,  90  Cal.,  245. 

"    Widamen  vs.  Hubbard,  88  Fed.,  806. 

Col Sheets  vs.  Sheets,  4  Col.  App.  450;  30  Pac.,  310. 

Conn Fitzgerald  vs.  Hartford  Life,  56  Conn.,  116. 

Ga Union  Frat.  League  vs.  Walton,  109  Ga.,  i. 

Ill Bloomington  Assn.  vs.  Blue,  120  111.,  121;  n 

N.  E.,  331. 

" Martin  vs.  Stubbings,  126  111.,  387. 

"  Moore  vs.  Chicago,  etc.,  Assn.  52  N.  E.,  882. 

Ind Metropolitan  Life  vs.  Brown,  65  N.  E.,  908. 

"    Milner  vs.  Bowman,  21  N.  E.,  1004;  119  Ind., 

448. 
Md N.  Y.,  etc.,  Co.  vs.  Flack,  3  Md.,  341. 

"  Whitridge  vs.  Barry,  42  Md.,  150. 

"  Senders  vs.  Home  Soc.,  20  At.,  137;  72  Md., 

5ii. 
Mass Brown  vs.  Greenfield  Assn.,  53  N.  E.,  129. 

"    Campbell  vs.  N.  E.  Mut.,  98  Mass.,  381. 

"    Dixon  vs.  Nat.  Life,  168  Mass.,  48;  46  N.  E., 

430. 

'    Mut.  Life  vs.  Allen,  138  Mass.,  31. 

'    Palmer  vs.  Merrill,  6  Cush.,  282. 

"    Troy  vs.  Sargent,  132  Mass.,  408. 

Mich Prudential  vs.  Liersch,  81  N.  W.,  258. 

Miss Murphy  vs.  Red,  64  Miss.,  614;  i  So.,  761. 

Neb Chamberlain  vs.  Butler,  86  N.  W.,  481. 

97 


N.  J Trenton    Mut.    vs.    Johnson,    24  N.  J.  L.    (4 

Zabr.),  576. 
N.  Y Cannon  vs.  Mut.  Life,  29  Hun,  470. 

"    Hogle  vs.  Guardian  Life,  4  Abb.  N.  S.,  347. 

"    Glassey  vs.  Met.  Life,  65  N.  Y.  St.,  493- 

"    Rawles  vs.  Amer.  Mut,  27  N.  Y.,  282. 

"    Olmstead  vs.  Keyes,  85  M .  Y.,  593. 

"    Sabin  vs.  Phinney,  134  N.  Y.,  423. 

"    St.  John  vs.  Amer.  Mut,  13  N.  Y.,  31. 

1    Smith  vs.  National  Ben.,  123  N.  Y.,  85. 

"    Steinbach  vs.   Diepenbrock,    158   N.   Y.,   24. 

"    Vallton  vs.  Nat.  Life,  20  N.  Y.,  32. 

N.  D N.  D.  Insurance  Law,  Sec.  4612. 

Ohio Echo  vs.  Renner,  41  Ohio  St.,  232. 

R.    I Clark  vs.  Allen,  1 1  R.  I.,  441. 

S.  C Cross  well  vs.  Conn.  Assn.,  51   S.  C,  103;  28 

S.  E.,  200. 

Wis Bursinger  vs.   Bk.  of  Watertown,  30  N.  W., 

290;  67  Wis.,  75. 

"   Kurd  vs.  Doty,  86  Wis.,  i. 

"    Strike  vs.  Wis.  Co.,  70  N.  W.,  819;  95  Wis., 

583- 

Eng Ashley  vs.  Ashley,  3  Sim.,  149. 

Fed Robinson  vs.  U.  S.  Assn.,  68  Fed.,  825. 

"   Lamont  vs.  Hotel,  etc.,  Assn.,  30  Fed.,  817. 

U.  S See  Conn.  Ins.  Co.  vs.  Shaefer,  94  U.  S.,  457. 

95 

Assignee  must  have  an  Insurable  Interest. 

Ala Ala.  Gold  Life  vs.  Mobile  Mut,  81  Ala.,  329; 

i  So.,  561. 

"    Helmetag  vs.  Miller,  76  Ala.,  183. 

"    Stoelker  vs.  Thorton,  6  So.,  680 ;  88  Ala.,  241. 

Ind Franklin  Ins.  Co.  vs.  Hazzard,  41  Ind.,  116. 

'    Franklin  Ins.  Co.  vs.  Sef fton,  53  Ind.,  380. 

" Kessler  vs.  Kuhns,  27  N.  E.,  980. 

Kan Mo.  Co.  vs.  McCrum,  12  Pac.,  517;  36  Kan., 

146. 

"    Mo.  Co.  vs.  Sturgis,  18  Kan.,  93. 

Ky Basye  vs.  Adams,  81  Ky.,  368. 

" Settle  vs.  Hill,  5  Ky.  L.  R.,  691. 

98 


Mich Lyon  vs.  Rolfe,  42  N.  W.,  1094. 

"    Mich.  Mut.  vs.  Rolfe,  76  Mich.,  146. 

Mo Heusner  vs.  Mut.  Life,  47  Mo.  App.,  336. 

Pa Gilbert  vs.  Moos,  104  Pa.  St.,  74. 

'* Hartig  vs.  Reeves,  2  Pa.  Sup.  Ct,  545. 

" Hoffman  vs.  Hoke,  122  Pa.  St.,  377;   15  At, 

437. 

"  Keystone  Mut.  vs.  Norris,  8  At.,  638. 

" Ruth  vs.  Katterman,  112  Pa.  St.,  257;  3  At, 

833. 

" Stambaugh  vs.  Blake,  15  At.,  705. 

Tenn Clement  vs.   N.  Y.  Life,  46  S.  W.,  561;   101 

Tenn.,  22. 

Tex Price  vs.  Sup.  Lodge,  4  S.  W.,  633;  68  Tex., 

361. 

"   Shonfield  vs.  Turner,  12  S.  W.,  626;  75  Tex., 

324. 

U.  S Cammack  vs.  Lewis,  15  Wall.,  643. 

1    Warnock  vs.  Davis,  104  U.  S.,  775. 

See  in  this  connection :  Indiana  Insur- 
ance Law,  Sec.  130;  Missouri  Ins. 
Law,  Sec.  7907;  Pennsylvania  Laws, 
1883,  and  Insurance  Law  of  Illinois. 
(Assessment  Insurance.) 


96 

Termination  of  Assignee's  Insurable  Interest  does  not 
invalidate  the  assignment. 

Fed .Manhattan  Life  vs.  Hennessy,  99  Fed.,  64. 


97 

No  particular  form  of  Words  need  be  used  to  make  an 
assignment  so  long  as  a  clear  intent  to  assign  is  shown. 

Ill St  Clair  Soc.  vs.  Fietsam,  97  111.,  474. 

" Swift  vs.  Ry.  Assn.,  96  111.,  309. 

Me Garnsey  vs.  Gardner,  49  Me.,  167. 

Miss Pass  vs.  McCrea,  36  Miss.,  143. 

Mo Kimball  vs.  Donald,  20  Mo.,  577. 

99 


98 

//  the  Assignment  is  delivered,  it  is  not  necessary  to 
also  deliver  the  policy. 

Pa Scott  vs.  Dixon,  108  Pa.  St.,  6. 

Tex Burgess  vs.  N.  Y.  Life,  53  S.  W.,  602. 

Neale  vs.  Molineaux,  I.  Car.  &  K.,  672. 

99 

Assignment  need  not  be  in  writing,  but  in  such  cases 
the  policy  must  be  delivered. 

M]d N.  Y.  Life  vs.  Flack,  3  Md.,  341. 

Mass Hewins  vs.   Baker,    161   Mass.,  320. 

Minn Hogue  vs.  Minn.   Co.,  59  Minn.,  39. 

Mo Chapman  vs.   Mcllwrath,   77   Mo.,  38. 

N.  J Trav.  Ins.  Co.  vs.  Brandt,  33  At.,  1060. 

N.  Y Marcus  vs.  St.  Louis  Mut,  68  N.  Y.,  625. 

S.  C Macauley  vs.  Central  Nat.  Bk.,  27  S  C,  215; 

3  S.  K,  193- 

Tenn Hancock  vs.  Fidelity  Mut,  53  S.  W.,  181. 

Tex Lord  vs.  N.  Y.  Life,  66  S.  W.,  290. 

1OO 

A  Life  Insurance  Contract  may  be  the  subject  of  a 
gift  causa  mortis  or  inter  vivos. 

N.  J Trav.  vs.  Grant,  33  At,  1060. 

Tex Lord  vs.  N.  Y.  Life,  66  S.  W.,  290. 

See  also : — 

Ala Lehman  vs.  Gunn,  27  So.,  475. 

Ill Weaver  vs.  Weaver,  52  N.  E.,  338. 

101 

Where  the  contract  requires  the  Consent  of  the  Insurer 
to  an  Assignment,  the  parties  to  the  Assignment  cannot 
object  because  such  consent  was  not  obtained. 

Ky Embry's  Adm.  vs.  Harris,  52  S.  W.,  958. 

" Lee  vs.  Murrell,  9  Ky.  L.  R.,   104. 

Mass Hewins  vs.  Baker,  37  N.  E.,  441. 

Minn Hogue  vs.  Minn.  Co.,  60  N.  W.,  812. 

N.  H Brown  vs.  Mansur,  64  N.  H.,  39;  5  At,  768. 

100 


102 

Absence  of  Insurer's  Consent  to  an  Assignment,  even 
when  required,  will  not  prevent  assignee  from  receiving 
the  proceeds. 

Mass Richardson  vs.  White,  44  N.  E.,  1072. 

N.  Y Marcus  vs.  St.  Louis  Mut,  68  N.  Y.,  625. 

Tenn Mut,    etc.,    Co.    vs.    Hamilton,    37    Tenn.    (5 

Sneed),  269. 

But  see  :— 
La Moise  vs.  Mut.  Reserve,  13  So.,   170;  45  La. 

Ann. 

Pa Nat.  Mut  vs.  Lupold,  101  Pa.  St.,  in. 

Fed Harmon  vs.  Lewis,  24  Fed.,  97. 

103 

The  Insurer  may  assign  his  interest  in  the  insurance 
contract. 

Ala Helmetag  vs.  Miller,  76  Ala.,  183. 

Mass Atlantic  Mut  vs.  Gannon,  60  N.  E.,  933. 

N.  J Trav.  Ins.  Co.  vs.  Grant,  33  At,   1060. 

N.  Y Miller  vs.   Campbell,   140  N.   Y.,  457. 

Ohio Eckel   vs.    Renner,   41    Ohio    St.,   232. 

Tenn Hancock  vs.  Fidelity  Mut,  53  S.  W.,  181. 

U.  S Roberts  vs.  Phoenix  Life,   120  U.  S.,  86. 

104 

A  Beneficiary  may  assign  his  interest  in  the  insurance 
contract.  (See  105.) 

Ind Damron  vs.  Penn  Mut,  99  Ind.,  478. 

La Succession  of  Richardson,  14  La.  Ann.,  I. 

Md Harrison  vs.  McConkey,  i  Md.  Chan.,  34. 

"    Hewlett  vs.  Home,  etc.,  74  Md.,  350 ;  24  At., 

324. 

"    N.   Y.   Life  vs.   Flack,  3   Md.}  341. 

Miss... . .  .Murphy  vs.  Red.,  64  Miss,  614. 

Mo Baker  vs.  Young,  47  Mo.,  453. 

"    Charter  Oak  Life  vs.  Brant,  47  Mo.,  419. 

N.  Y Lawler  vs.  Nat  Assn.,  31  N.  Y.,  Supp.,  875. 

"    Ferdon  vs.   Canfield,  39  Hun.,  571. 

"    St.  John  vs.  Amer.  Mut,  13  N.  Y.,  31. 

"    Valton  vs.  Nat  Loan  Assn.,  20  N.  Y.,  32. 

101 


Ohio Eckel  vs.  Renner,  41  Ohio  St.,  232. 

Pa Cunningham  vs.    Smith,   70   Pa.    St.,  450. 

R.  I Clark  vs.  Allen,  1 1  R.  I.,  439. 

Wis Archibald  vs.  Mut.  Life,  38  Wis.,  542. 

U.  S Mut.  Life  vs.  Armstrong,  117  U.  S.,  591. 

'    Robinson  vs.  Mut.  Ben.,  16  Blatchf.,  194. 

1O5 

In  the  absence  of  special  statute,  if  a  married  woman 
has  control  of  her  property,  and  may  transfer  it,  she  may 
also  transfer  her  interest  in  an  insurance  contract. 

Col Collins  vs.  Dawley,  4  Colo.,  138. 

Conn Chapin  vs.  Fellowes,  36  Conn.,  132. 

1     Conn.  Mut.  vs.  Berroughs,  34  Conn.,  305. 

!    Phoenix  Life  vs.  Opper,  58  At.,  586. 

Ill Norwood  vs.  Gordon,  60  111.,  253. 

"  Pomeroy  vs.  Manhattan  Life,  40  111.,  398. 

Ind Damron  vs.  Pa.  Mut.,  99  Ind.,  478. 

" Pence  vs.   Makepeace,  65  Ind.,  345. 

Md Emerick  vs.    Coakley,   35   Md.,    192. 

Mass Knickerbocker  Life  vs.  Weitz,  99  Mass.,  294. 

Mo Charter  Oak  vs.  Brandt,  47  Mo.,  419. 

N.  J De  Ronga  vs.  Elliott,  23  N.  J.  Eq.,  486. 

Pa Brown's   Appeal,    125    Pa.    St.,   303. 

R.  I Sup.  Assembly  vs.  Campbell,  17  R.  I.,  402. 

Tenn Scobey  vs.  Waters,   10  Lea.,  551. 

But  see: 
Mass Unity  Mjut.  vs.  Dugan,   118  Mass.,  219. 

1O6 

The  following  States  have  laws  directly  referring  to 
the  assignment  of  life  insurance  contracts  by  married 
women : 

New  Jersey,  New  York,  Ohio  and  Wisconsin. 
See:— 

N.  Y Morschauser  vs.  Pierce,  72  N.  Y.,  Supp.,  328. 

"     Dannhauser  vs.  Wallenstein,  62  N.  E.,  160. 

"    Miller  vs.   Campbell,   140  N.   Y.,  457. 

"    Spencer  vs.  Myers,  150  N.  Y.,  269;  44  N.  E., 

942. 

"     Trav.    Ins.    Co.   vs.    Healy,   86   Hun.,    524. 

"     Eadie  vs.  Slimmon,  26  N.  Y.,  9. 

102 


N.Y Barry  vs.  Equitable,  59  N.  Y.,  587. 

"    Wilson  vs.  Lawrence,  76  N.   Y.,  585. 

"    Brick  vs.  Campbell,  122  N.  Y.,  337;  25  N.  E., 

493- 
''    Stokes  vs.  Ammerman,  121  N.  Y.,  337;  24  N. 

K,  819. 

N.  Y Sherman  vs.  Allison,  80  N.  Y.  Supp.,  148. 

Wis Ellison  vs.  Straw,  92  N.  W.,  1094  (before  the 

statute) . 

107 

Where  the  Assignment  is  a  Wagering  transaction,  the 
assignee  may  hold  as  his  own  only  the  amount  of  the 
debt  due  him  from  the  insured. 

Pa Cooper  vs.  Weaver,  n  At,  780. 

"  Stambaugh  vs.  Blake,  15  Atl.,  705. 

U.  S Cammack  vs.  Lewis,  15  Wall,  643. 

'    Warnock  vs.  Davis,  104  U.  S.,  775. 

108 

A  Creditor  Assigee  under  an  Absolute  Assignment  may 
hold  the  entire  proceeds  as  his  own  unless  the  assignment 
is  a  wagering  transaction  (107). 

Conn Bevin  vs.  Conn.  Mut.,  23,  Conn.,  244. 

Ind Amick  vs.  Butler,  in  Ind.,  578;  12  N.  E.,  518. 

Minn Hale  vs.  Life,  etc.,  Co.,  68  N.  W.,  182. 

Miss Murphy  vs.  Red,  64  Miss.,  614. 

N.  Y Ferguson  vs.  Mut.,  102  N.  Y.,  647. 

[    Grattan  vs.  Nat.  Life,  15  Hun.,  74. 

"    Steinbach  vs.  Diepenbrock,  158  N.  Y.,  24;  52 

N.  E.,  662. 

Pa Grant  vs.  Kline,  115  Pa.  St.,  618;  9  At.,  150. 

" Ruth  vs.  Katterman,  112  Pa.  St.,  351. 

See  sections  2764,  2766,  of  California 
Code. 

109 

Even  though  the  Assignment  be  Absolute  and  Valid, 
a  Creditor  Assignee  may  hold  only  so  much  of  the  insur- 
ance proceeds  as  is  necessary  for  his  indemnity. 
Ala Culver  vs.  Guyer,  29  So.,  799. 

103 


Ala Helmetag  vs.   Miller,   76  Ala.,  183. 

Cal Widaman  vs.  Hubbard,  98  Fed.,  806. 

Ky Barber's   Admr.   vs.   Larue's   Assignee,   51    S. 

W.,  5. 

Mich Met.  Life  vs.  O'Brien,  92  Mich.,  584. 

Mo Mutual  Life  vs.  Richards,  72  S.  W.,  486. 

Tenn Rison  Vs.  Wilkeson,  3  Sneed,  565. 

Tex Cawthorne  vs.   Perry,   13   S.   W.,  268. 

"   Equitable  vs.  Hazlewood,  12  S.  W.,  621. 

"    Lewy  vs.   Gillard,   13   S.  W.,  304. 

Va First  Nat.  Bk.  vs.  Speece,  37  S.  E.,  843. 

'    Roller  vs.  Moore,  86  Va.,  517;  10  S.  E.,  241. 

U.  S Crotty  vs.  Union  Mut.,  12  S.  C.  R.,  749. 

See    California    Code — sections    2764, 
2766. 

110 

An  Absolute  Assignment  may  be  shown  to  have  been 
made  as  Collateral  Security. 

Mass Dickson  vs.  Nat.  Life,  46  N.  E.,  430. 

Mich McDonald  vs.  Birss,  58  N.  W.,  357. 

Utah Jones  vs.  N.  Y.  Life,  50  Pac.,  620. 

Va Roller  vs.  Moore,  86  Va.,  512;  10  S.  E.,  241. 

See  also : — 
N.  J Lance  vs.  Bonnell,  43  At.,  288. 

Ill 

Under  an  Assignment  as  Collateral  Security,  the  as- 
signee may  hold  as  his  own  only  so  much  of  the  proceeds 
as  is  necessary  for  his  indemnity. 

Ga Exchange  Bank  vs.  Loh,  31  S.  E.,  459. 

" Morris  vs.  Ga.  Assn.,  24  S.  E.,  378. 

Mich McDonald  vs.  Birss,  58  N.  W.,  359- 

Utah Jones  vs.  N.  Y.  Life,  50  Pac.,  620. 

112 

Assignment  may  be  set  aside  if  procured  by  Fraud  or 

V       JJia/lita    J vi  flu  oin  rt> 


*  J.OO  PJCraWW  W99     rft 

Undue  Influence. 


Undue  Influence. 

Ark Mente  vs.  Townsend,  59  S.  W.,  41. 

Conn Conn.  Mut.  vs.  Westervelt,  52  Conn.,  586. 

Md Whitridge  vs.   Barry,  42   Md.,   140. 


104 


Mich Mut  Ins.  Co.  vs.  Wayne  Sav.  Bk.,  68  Mich., 

116;  35  N.  W.,853. 
N.  Y Barry  vs.  Brune,  8  Hun,  395 ;  71  N.  Y.,  261. 

:    Barry  vs.  Equitable,  59  N.  Y.,  587. 

'    Eadie  vs.  Slimmon,  26  N.  Y.,  9. 

"    Fowler  vs.  Butterly,  78  N.  Y.,  68. 

Pa McCutcheon's  Appeal,  99  Pa.  St.,  133. 

113 

Assignment  may  be  set  aside  if  made  in  Fraud  of 
Creditors. 

Ind Rodwell  vs.  Johnson,  52  N.  E.,  798. 

Tex Burges  vs.  N.  Y.  Life,  53  S.  W.,  602. 

Fed Aetna  Bank  vs.  Manhattan  Life,  24  Fed.,  769. 

114 

A   Wife  has  an  Insurable  Interest  in  the  life  of  her 
Husband. 

Conn Continental  Life  vs.  Palmer,  42  Conn.,  60. 

Ind Hutson  vs.  Merrifield,  51  Ind.,  24. 

Mo Gambs  vs.  Covenant  Mutual,  50  Mo.,  44. 

" McKee  vs.  Phoenix  Ins.  Co.,  28  Mo.,  383. 

N.  Y Baker  vs.  Union  Mutual,  43  N.  Y.,  283. 

U.  S Conn.  Mut.  vs.  Schaef f er,  94  U.  S.,  457. 

"    .Washington,  etc.,  Bank  vs.  Hume,  128  U.  S., 

I95'  c        1 

See  also : — 

Ga Equitable  Soc.  vs.  Patterson,  41  Ga.,  338. 

Vt Currier   vs.    Continental    Life,    57   Vt.,   496. 

115 

A  Husband  has  an  Insurable  Interest  in  the  life  of  his 
Wife. 
Vt Currier   vs.    Continental    Life,    57   Vt,   496. 

116 

A  Partner  has  an  Insurable  Interest  in  the  life  of  his 
Co-Partner. 
Conn Bevin  vs.  Conn.  Mutual,  23  Conn.,  244. 

105 


Mass Morrell  vs.  Trenton,  etc.,  Co.,  10  Cush.,  282. 

N.  J Trenton  Mutual  vs.   Johnson,  4  Zabr.,   576. 

N.  Y Hoyt  vs.  N.  Y.  Life,  3  Bosw.,  440. 

U.  S Conn.  Mutual  vs.  Luchs,  108  U.  S.,  498. 

But  see  :— 
N.  C Powell  vs.  Dewey,  123  N.  C,  103,  105. 

117 

Bondsman  has  an  Insurable  Interest  in  the  life  of  his 
Principal. 
Pa Scott  vs.  Dickson,  108  Pa.  St.,  6. 

118 

Bondsman  has  an  Insurable  Interest  in  the  life  of  his 
Co -Surety. 
Eng Brandford  vs.   Saundres,   25   W.   R.,  650. 

119 

A  tenant  has  an  Insurable  Interest  in  the  life  of  his 
Landlord  whose  term  is  of  indefinite  duration. 
Fed Sides  vs.  Knickerbocker  Life,  16  Fed.,  650. 

12O 

A  Master  has  an  Insurable  Interest  in  the  life  of  a 
Servant  who  is  bound  to  him  for  a  term. 
La Summers   vs.   U.    S.,   etc.,   Trust  Co.,   13  La. 

An.,  504. 

N.  J Trenton  Mutual  vs.  Johnson,  24  N.  J.,  576. 

N.  Y Miller  vs.  Eagle  Ins.  Co.,  2  E.  D.  Smith,  268, 

292. 
N    C Woodfin  vs.  Asheville,  etc.,  Co.,  6  Jones  L., 

558. 

121 

A  Servant  has  an  Insurable  Interest  in  the  life  of  a 
Master  with  whom  he  has  a  contract  for  a  term. 
Eng Hebden  vs.  West,   in  W.  R.,  422. 

1 06 


122 

A   Child  has  an  Insurable  Interest  in  the  life  of  his 
Parent. 

Me Mitchell   vs.    Union   Life,   45    Me.,    104. 

Mass Forbes  vs.  American  Mutual,  15  Gray,  249. 

"    Loomis  vs.  Eagle  Life,  6  Gray,  396. 

N.  Y Gratton  vs.  National  Life,  15  Mun.,  74. 

Pa Reserve  Mutual  vs.  Kane,  81  Pa.  St.,  154. 

Va Valley    Mut.    vs.    Terwalt,    79    Va.,    421. 

But  see  :— 

111 Guardian  Mutual  vs.  Hogan,  80  111.,  35. 

Ky Metropolitan  Life  vs.  Blesch,  58  S.  W.  436. 

Fed Life,  etc.,  Co.  vs.  O'Neil,  106  Fed.,  800. 

123 

Brothers  and  Sisters  have  no  Insurable  Interest  in  the 
lives  of  one  another. 

Conn Bevin  vs.  Ins.  Co.,  23  Conn.,  244. 

"     Lewis  vs.  Phoenix  Mutual,  39  Conn.,  100. 

la Farmers'  Bk.  vs.  Johnson,  91  Vv .,  1074. 

Mo Reynolds  vs.  Prudential,  88  Mo.  App.,  679. 

But  see  :— 

Mass Lord  vs.  Dall,  12  Mass.,  115. 

Mo Sternberg  vs.  Levy,   169  S.  W.,   1114. 

U.  S Aetna  Life  vs.  France,  94  U.  S.,  561. 


107 


INDEX. 


(Number  refer  to  pages.) 

ABSOLUTE  ASSIGNMENT.    See  ASSIGNMENT. 
ASSIGNABILITY:— 

PAGE. 

Of  a  Life  Insurance  Policy 38,  96 

Of  a  Mutual  Benefit  Certificate 38,  96 

ASSIGNMENT:-^ 

Definition 38 

Words  used,  Form  of 40,  41,  99 

May  be  oral  or  written 41,  100 

Delivery  41,  100 

Consideration    38 

Assignment  of  entire  chose  in  action 38 

Assignment  of  part  of  chose  in  action 38,  95 

Notice  to  Insurer 40 

Consent  of  Insurer 41,  100,  101 

What  Law  governs  39,  96 

Who  must  join  in  Absolute  Assignment 43 

Assignee  brings  action  at  Law,  When 38 

Assignee  brings  action  in  Equity,  When 38 

Assignee  brings  action  in  Assignor's  name,  When.  38 

Assignee  brings  action  in  his  own  name,  When 38 

Assignment  by  Beneficiary 43,  101 

Assignment  by  Insured 43,  101 

Assignment  by  Married  Woman 43,  102 

Absolute  Assignment.     Amount  of  Proceeds  re- 
ceived by  Assignee 44 

Absolute  Assignment  may  be  shown  to  have  been 

made  as  Collateral  Security 45,  104 

Assignment  as  Collateral 45 

Assignment  to  Creditor;  Amount  received  by  as- 
signee : — 

Absolute  Assignment 44,  103 

Assignment  as  Collateral 44,  104 

109 


INDEX. 

PAGE. 

When  Assignment  is  a  Wagering  transaction.  44,  103 

Assignment  in  Fraud  of  Creditors 46,  105 

Fraud  and  undue  influence 46,  104 

See  also  INSURABLE  INTEREST,  ASSIGNABIL- 
ITY,  CHANGE  OF  BENEFICIARY,  FORMS  OF  AS- 
SIGNMENT, GIFT. 

BANKRUPTCY  :— 

U.  S.  Bankruptcy  Act  of  1898,  Sec.  ;oa-5 15 

State  Exemption  Laws,  Sec.  6 15 

Where  policy  has  a  Cash  Surrender  Value 16 

Where  policy  has  no  Cash  Surrender  Value 16 

Where  policy  not  payable  to  Bankrupt 17,  18 

Endowment  Policies  18 

BENEFICIARY:— 

Definition  3 

Beneficiary  may  sue  on  the  contract 4,  60 

Payment  to  wrong  person 4 

Regular    Life    Insurance    Policy,    Who   may    be 

Beneficiary  8 

Mutual  Benefit  Insurance: — 

Who  may  be  a  Beneficiary 8,  64 

Prescribed  Class  8,  64 

When   Beneficiary   is   not   within    Prescribed 

Class 8,  64 

Charter,  By-laws,  etc.,  Construction  of 8,  65 

Statutes,  Compliance  with 8,  9 

Enlarging  Statutes  9,  66 

Restricting  Statutes  9,  66 

Waiver  of  Requirements  by  Society 9 

Absence  of  valid  designation  of  Beneficiary 

9,  10,  66 
Definition  of  Beneficiary  a  testamentary  act.  9,  66 

Creditor  as  Beneficiary 10 

Wager  Policy n,  68 

May  hold  entire  proceeds,  When n,  12,  68 

May  not  hold  entire  proceeds,  When. .   n,  12,  68 
Words   used  to  designate  the  Beneficiary,   Con- 
struction of: — 
"As  his  interest  may  appear" 22 

no 


INDEX. 

PAGE. 

Child.     Adopted   24,  78 

Children  born   after  consummation   of  con- 
tract    24,  25,  79 

"Children"— Does    not    include    children    of 

wife  by  former  husband 25,  79 

"Children" — Includes  children  of  insured  by 

former  or  subsequent  wife 25,  79 

"Children"— Does  not  include  grandchildren. 

24,  78 

"Dependents" , 22,  75,  76 

"Estate"  20,  72 

"Heirs" 21,  72 

"Heirs,     executors,     administrators    and    as- 
signs"     20,  72 

"Husband  and  Children;"  shares  received 24 

"If  living"  21,  74 

"Legal  Representatives"  21,  73 

"Relatives"  22,  74,  75 

"Widow"  23,  77 

"Wife" 22,  23,  77 

"Wife  and  Children;"  shares  received.  23,  77,  78 

"Wife  and  Their  Children" 25,  79 

"Wife  and  in  the  event  of  her  prior  death  to 
the  Children" 27,  35,  83,  93 

See  also  WIFE'S  POLICY,  DEATH  OF  BENEFI- 
CIARY, INSURABLE  INTEREST,  CREDITOR,  DI- 
VORCE, MARRIAGE,  INTEREST  OF  BENEFI- 
CIARY, CHANGE  OF  BENEFICIARY,  ASSIGN- 
MENT. 

CASES  CITED 60 

CHANGE  OF  BENEFICIARY— MUTUAL  BENEFIT 
INSURANCE:— 

When  insured  may  change 28,  84 

Usual  requirements  29 

Where  member  may  only  apportion 29,  84 

Wrhere  change  is  prohibited 29,  84 

Membership  in  Mutual  Benefit  Society  gives  right 

to  Change  the  Beneficiary 30,  85 

Change  of  By-laws,  Effect  of 32,  87 

III 


INDEX. 

CHANGE  OF  BENEFICIARY— REGULAR  LIFlflN- 
SURANCE  :— 

When  insured  may  Change  Beneficiary 28,  86 

Change  of  Beneficiary  Clause.    The 28,  30,  86 

CHANGE  OF  BENEFICIARY— IN  GENERAL:— 

Compliance  with  Rules  and  By-laws,  etc. .  31,  32,  33, 

86,  90 

"By  complying  with  the  Laws,"  construed 32,  87 

Absence  of  Requirements 32,  33,  87,  91 

Consent  of  Insurer 32 

Refusal  of  Consent  by  Insurer 32,  88 

Waiver  of  Strict  Compliance  by  Insurer 32,  88 

Where  Policy  or  Certificate  is  lost  or  cannot  be 

surrendered   32,  89 

Where  Insured  does  all  in  his  power  to  make  the 
Change,  but  dies  before  the  Insurer  makes  the 

Change 32,  89 

Assignment,   Effect  of,  on  right  to  Change  the 

Beneficiary 41 

Fraud  or  Undue  Influence,  Effect  of 33,  90 

Change    of    Beneficiary    by    Will,    when    permit- 
ted    33,  90,  91 

Change  of  Beneficiary  by  Will,  when  not  permit- 
ted   33,  90,  91 

When  insured  takes  out  the  insurance  and  pays 
the  premiums,  he  may  dispose  of  the  contract 

as  he  chooses — Wisconsin  rule 33,  34,  91 

CITATIONS 60 

COLLATERAL,    ASSIGNMENT    AS.     See   ASSIGN- 
MENT. 
CONSENT  OF  INSURER.    See  ASSIGNMENT  AND 

CHANGE  OF  BENEFICIARY. 

CONSIDERATION    FOR   ASSIGNMENT.      See   AS- 
SIGNMENT. 

CONTRACT.    See  LIFE  INSURANCE  CONTRACT. 
CREDITOR  AS  ASSIGNEE.     See  ASSIGNMENT. 
CREDITOR  AS  BENEFICIARY.   See  BENEFICIARY. 
CREDITOR    OF    BENEFICIARY    OR    INSURED— 
RIGHT  TO  PROCEED  AGAINST  PROCEEDS : 
Mutual  Benefit  Insurance 12,  68 

I  12 


INDEX. 

PAGE. 

Mutual  Benefit  Insurance ;  Exempting  Statutes.  12,  69 

Regular  Life  Insurance 12,  69 

Premiums  paid  in  Fraud  of  Creditors 12,  69 

Policy  purchased  with  misappropriated  funds 15 

See  also  BANKRUPTCY,  WIFE'S  POLICY. 

DEATH  OF  BENEFICIARY  :— 
Death  of  Sole  Beneficiary : — 

Mutual  Benefit  Insurance 34,  91 

Regular  Life  Insurance 35,  92 

Death  of  one  of  several  Beneficiaries : — 

Mutual  Benefit  Insurance 36,  94 

Regular  Life  Insurance 36,  94 

Common  Disaster,  Death  of  Insured  and  Benefi- 
ciary or  of  two  Beneficiaries  in 21,  22 

No  Presumption  of  Survivorship 21,  22  ,74 

Policy  payable  to  Wife  and,  in  the  event  of  her 
prior  death,  to  Children: — 

Death  of  Child 27,  35,  83,  93 

Death  of  Wife 27,  35,  83,  93 

Policy  payable  to  Children ;  Death  of  Child. 

24,  36,  92,  94 
Mutual  Benefit  Certificate  payable  to  Children; 

Death  of  Child 24,  36,  91,  94 

Death  of  Beneficiary  who  is  a  married  woman.  35,  93 
DEFINITIONS.      See    ASSIGNMENT,      BENEFICI- 
ARY, ENDOWMENT  POLICY,  LIFE  INSURANCE 
CONTRACT. 

DELIVERY.    See  ASSIGNMENT. 
DIVORCE  OF  BENEFICIARY  FROM  INSURED:— 

Mutual  Benefit  Insurance,  Effect  in 22,  23,  76 

Regular  Life  Insurance,  Effect  of 22,  76 

ENDOWMENT   POLICY— DEFINITION  AND  AN- 
ALYSIS   3,  18 

FORMS  OF  ASSIGNMENTS:— 

Absolute  Assignment 48,  49 

Absolute  Assignment  with  express  Power  of  At- 
torney    50 

Absolute  Assignment  conditional  upon  Survival 
of  Assignee 54 

113 


INDEX. 

PAGE. 

Absolute  Assignment  of  Life  Interest  in  Endow- 
ment Policy  51 

Absolute  Assignment  of  Life  Interest  in  Endow- 
ment Policy  conditional  upon  Survival  of  As- 
signee   52 

Absolute  Assignment  in  Consideration  of  Love 
and  Affection  Conditional  upon  Death  of  the 
Insured  prior  to  end  of  Endowment  Period  and 

Survival  of  Assignee   52 

Assignment  as  Collateral 54,  55,  56 

Assignment  as  Collateral  with  express  Power  of 

Attorney  57 

Re-Assignment  59 

Release  of  Assignment 58,  59 

FRAUD  AND  UNDUE  INFLUENCE.     See  ASSIGN- 
MENT, CHANGE  OF  BENEFICIARY. 
FRAUD     OF     CREDITORS.      See     ASSIGNMENT, 

CREDITOR. 

GIFT— CAUSA  MORTIS  or  INTER  VIVOS. ..  41,  TOO 
INSURABLE INTEREST:— 

What  Insurable  Interest  is 4 

Common  Law  Rule 5,  61 

Statute  of  14  Geo.  III.,  ch.  48 5 

Insurable   Interest  necessary  for  valid   Contract 

of    Insurance     4,  6 

Mere    Relationship    insufficient     4,  5,  60 

Must  be  a  Pecuniary  Interest 4 

Policy  taken  out  by  the  Insured: — 

Beneficiary  must  have  Insurable  Interest. . .  6,  63 
Beneficiary  need   not   have   Insurable   Inter- 
est    5,  6,  62 

Policy  taken  out  by  someone  other  than  Insured.  5,  61 
Assignee  need  not  have  Insurable  Interest...  39,  97 

Assignee  must  have  Insurable  Interest 39,  98 

Who  has  an  Insurable  Interest : — 

Bondsmen  in  Life  of  Co-Surety. 5,  106 

Bondsmen  in  Life  of  Principal 5,  106 

Brother  in  Life  of  Sister 5,  107 

Child  in  Life  of  Parent 5,  107 

Creditor  in  Life  of  Debtor 5,  10,  67 

114 


INDEX. 

PAGE. 

Husband  in  Life  of  Wife 5,  105 

Insured  in  his  Own  Life 5 

Master  in  Life  of  Servant 5,  106 

Partner  in  Life  of  Co-partner 5,  105 

Servant  in  Life  of  Master 5,  106 

Sister  in  Life  of  Brother 5,  106 

Tenant  in  Life  of  Landlord 5,  106 

Wife  in  Life  of  Husband 4,  105 

Termination  of  Assignee's  Insurable  Interest.  .  40,  99 
Termination  of  Beneficiary's  Insurable  Interest.   7,  63 

INTEREST  OF  BENEFICIARY:— 

Vested  on  Death  of  Insured,  Becomes 26,  80 

When  Beneficiary  cannot  be  Changed 26 

Where  Beneficiary  may  be  Changed 26,  30,  81 

Regular  Life  Insurance  Policy,  interest  of  Bene- 
ficiary     26,  80 

Contract  between  Beneficiary  and  Insured,  Effect 

of    26,  27,  82 

Possession  of  Policy  or  Certificate  by   Benefici- 
ary,   Effect    of    27,  83 

Wife  and,  in  the  event  of  her  Prior  Death,  to  the 
Children,  Policy  payable  to  : — 

Interest  of  Wife 27,  35,  83,  93 

Interest  of  Children 27,  35,  83,  93 

Interest  of  Minor 27,  83,  84 

See  also  SURRENDER  OF   POLICY,   CHANGE  OF 
BENEFICIARY,  DEATH  OF  BENEFICIARY. 

JOINT  BENEFICIARIES.     See  DEATH  OF  BENE- 
FICIARY. 

LIFE  INSURANCE  CONTRACT.    DEFINITION 
OF 3,  7 

MARRIAGE   OF  INSURED,   EFFECT  ON   MU- 
TUAL BENEFIT  CERTIFICATE 36,  94,  95 

MARRIED  WOMAN.    See  ASSIGNMENT,  DIVORCE, 
WIFE'S  POLICY,  DEATH  OF  BENEFICIARY. 

MURDER  OF  INSURED  :— 

By  Assignee  or  his  predecessor  in  interest. ...  46,  95 
By  Beneficiary 36,  95 


INDEX. 

PAGE. 

NOTICE  OF  ASSIGNMENT.     See  ASSIGNMENT. 
PRESUMPTION  OF  SURVIVORSHIP.    See  DEATH 

OF  BENEFICIARY. 

RE-ASSIGNMENT,  FORM  OF.    See  FORMS  OF  AS- 
SIGNMENT. 
RELEASE     OF     ASSIGNMENT,     FORM     OF.     See 

FORMS  OF  ASSIGNMENT. 

SHARES   RECEIVED   WHEN   MORE  THAN   ONE 
BENEFICIARY.     See  BENEFICIARY. 

SURRENDER  OF  POLICY 27,  83,  84 

SURVIVORSHIP,  PRESUMPTION  OF.    See  DEATH 

OF  BENEFICIARY. 
UNDUE     INFLUENCE.       See     ASSIGNMENT, 

CHANGE   OF   BENEFICIARY. 

VESTED  INTEREST.     See  INTEREST  OF  BENE- 
FICIARY. 
WAGER    POLICY.     See     BENEFICIARY,     INSUR- 

ABLE  INTEREST. 
WAIVER     BY     INSURER.       See     BENEFICIARY, 

CHANGE  OF  BENEFICIARY. 
WIFE'S  POLICY. 

Creditors  of  Insured   12,  13,  70 

Wife's  policy  Laws 12,  13,  70 

New  York  Statute 13 

Alabama  Rule 14 

Other  State  Statutes  13,  70 

Endowment   Policy 14.  71 

Policy  assigned  to  Wife  or  Married  Woman. .   14.  71 

Creditors  of  Wife  Beneficiary 14,  15,  71 

Policy  purchased  with  Misappropriated  Funds. ...  15 
Change  of  Beneficiary   Clause   in  Wife's   policy, 

Effect  of 31 

Assignment   of   Wife's    Policy.      See   ASSIGN- 
MENT. 

See  also  DEATH  OF  BENEFICIARY. 
WISCONSIN  RULE.    See  CHANGE  OF  BENEFICI- 
ARY. 

116 


YC166240 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


Novioita 


30m-l,'15 


9/15/461     Mending 


Pricke,  C./. 

_  The    law   Qf   life 


-p8 


S^ov  10 -j 


^fe-*y* 


/I 


